apidog_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits such as keyword search with relevance scoring, filters, and pagination, which add value beyond a basic 'list' statement. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe the return format or any side effects, which is a notable gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List and search endpoints') and then lists key capabilities. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 the rich schema (10 params, all described) and no output schema, the description is adequate for an agent to select the tool. It conveys the tool's scope and key features at a high level. However, the absence of an output schema and any mention of the response shape means the agent must infer what a list of endpoints looks like, so it's not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'scored by relevance' is already present in the schema for the query parameter, so it adds no new meaning. It does group parameters into categories (filters, pagination) but doesn't explain interactions beyond what the schema already covers.

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 uses a specific verb ('List and search') and clearly identifies the resource ('endpoints in an Apidog module'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like apidog_get (single endpoint) and apidog_modules (list modules) by stating the list/search scope.

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 clear context for when to use the tool—when listing or searching endpoints in a module. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended use case is evident from the verbs and resource, so it's not merely implied.

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