list_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'List' and the phrase 'with its shape' imply a side-effect-free introspection call whose result includes endpoint schemas, but the description never affirms read-only safety, required auth, or how scope/mutating_only filtering changes the result.

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?

One short sentence with the action and target front-loaded; nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 the return payload need not be described, and both parameters are documented in the schema. The description communicates the tool's purpose and its linkage to qbt_call adequately, though for an unannotated tool it could say more about it being a safe, read-only discovery call.

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%: the schema already documents 'scope' (filter to one scope) and 'mutating_only' (only endpoints that change state). The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (every endpoint qbt_call can reach), and explicitly ties itself to the sibling tool qbt_call, which no other sibling does. It does not distinguish itself from read-oriented siblings like server_info, but the reference to qbt_call makes its discovery role identifiable.

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 mention of qbt_call implies this is the discovery step before invoking that tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. Usage is only inferable from the phrasing.

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