technitium_endpoints

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the meaningful safety-tier semantics ('read runs at once; change and destructive need the user's yes'), which is real behavioral context. It stops short of stating that this tool itself is a safe read-only lookup and says nothing about result size or pagination.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by tight per-parameter and safety notes with no filler. Every line earns its place, though the one-line-per-clause layout is slightly terse rather than fully integrated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only two optional string parameters, an existing output schema (so return values need no explanation), and no annotations to reconcile, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it. It is missing only explicit sibling routing, which is secondary for a simple discovery tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: both parameters are explained with what they match (path/title for query, group name for group) plus concrete examples. The only gap is that matching semantics (substring vs exact) and default/empty behavior are left implicit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Find Technitium API endpoints') and states the visible output (parameters and safety level), so the intent is unmistakable. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish this discovery tool from siblings like technitium_endpoint_help or technitium_call, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is a search/lookup step done before invoking an endpoint, but there is no explicit when-to-use or routing to the alternatives (technitium_endpoint_help vs technitium_call). The examples for query/group help the invocation but not the selection decision.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.