list_endpoints

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the load and does disclose a key behavioral trait: the data comes from a vendored spec rather than the live engine, so it may be stale, and the endpoint count is pinned to a version. It could say more about the read-only/list nature, but the staleness disclosure is genuinely valuable.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the provenance caveat. The mid-sentence backtick and line breaks are slightly awkward but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. For a zero-parameter listing tool, the description covers what is returned, its source, and the version-mismatch caveat, leaving little an agent would need to call it correctly.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema; baseline 4 applies. The schema is empty and fully described by its own structure.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it lists the engine's POST endpoints with one-line descriptions, and adds the provenance (vendored OpenAPI spec). It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like list_enums or engine_schema, which also expose engine metadata, 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?

The description implies a use case (checking available endpoints, and comparing with quantra_meta to detect a version mismatch) but never states when to use this versus list_enums or engine_schema, nor any preconditions. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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