extract-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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'from JS file analysis' which hints at the method, but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it makes network requests, whether it can be rate-limited, or what the output format looks like. For a tool that crawls a website, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It's efficient and to the point, though it could benefit from a second sentence about usage context.

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?

For a tool that crawls JS files and extracts endpoints, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention the output format, whether results are saved or returned, potential rate limits, or how it differs from the 'lite' sibling. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('API endpoints from JS file analysis'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like port-scan or directory-scan. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'extract-endpoints-lite', which likely performs a similar function with reduced 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that 'extract-endpoints-lite' exists as a lighter option, nor does it specify conditions like 'use this for full analysis' or 'use lite for quick checks'. The context is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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