list_api_endpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool shows (method, path, active flag, backing recipe), which is helpful for a list operation. However, it does not explicitly mention read-only behavior, permissions, or potential errors, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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?

The description is concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and output fields, followed by a practical prerequisite. Every word adds value, and it avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description explains the output fields (method, path, active flag, backing recipe) enough to set expectations. It also includes ordering guidance. It could be more complete by clarifying the meaning of 'active flag' or error behavior, but for a basic list tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not directly explain 'api_collection_id' beyond implying it identifies a collection via 'collection's' and the prerequisite to list collections first. This is minimal compensation for a parameter that is essential to the tool.

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 clearly identifies the action ('List'), the resource ('an API collection's endpoints'), and the purpose ('the TOOLS an API-Platform-backed Workato MCP server exposes'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the fields shown (method, path, active flag, backing recipe) and referencing the prerequisite 'list_api_collections'.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance by instructing 'Run list_api_collections first,' which clarifies the required ordering and indirectly indicates when this tool is appropriate. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the sequencing guidance is clear and useful.

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