List MagicSword endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is low, yet the description still adds real behavior: filtering happens server-side before pagination and the result is capped at limit (default 100, max 500). It does not describe the returned record shape, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then filters, then pagination, then the recommended use. No filler or repetition of boilerplate.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with a rich schema and no output schema, the description supplies the pagination behavior, server-side filtering guarantee, and the downstream purpose (retrieving endpoint IDs). Minor residual gap: it does not hint at what fields each listed endpoint contains.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including enums and the glob semantics of hostname_pattern. The description largely restates those enums and the limit default, adding only marginal value over structured data, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Lists endpoints (devices) enrolled in the MagicSword org") and explicitly maps the term endpoint to device. An agent can distinguish it from the singular sibling show_endpoint without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a clear use case: "Use this to find endpoint IDs for other tools," which tells the agent why to pick it. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. show_endpoint for full detail) or states when not to use it, so the routing guidance is incomplete relative to a 5.

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