list_endpoints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the output inclusions (scope, idempotency, rate limit) which is good, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as caching, pagination, authentication requirements, or whether it is a safe read operation. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the key verb 'list' and resource. Every sentence adds unique value.

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?

Given only one simple boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough for a listing endpoint. It names the key output fields (scope, idempotency, rate limit bucket) which helps the agent understand what to expect. No missing critical information.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's description of the boolean parameter, only restating that default is true and that all endpoints are currently /open/*. No additional clarity on parameter semantics.

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 states it lists Open API endpoints and provides scope, idempotency, and rate limit info. It clearly specifies the resource ('Open API 엔드포인트 목록') and what each item includes, but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'get_endpoint' or 'list_error_codes'.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor alternatives mentioned. The context of 'currently all /open/*' is helpful but does not guide the agent on when to prefer this over get_endpoint or other list tools. Implied usage for exploring endpoints, but lacks exclusions or prerequisites.

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