cerebro_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. It explains that the tool searches by path/method/handler, but does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., output format, result limits, or authentication). The description is adequate for a simple search tool but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence with an em dash and examples. Every word adds value, and the core purpose is front-loaded. No redundant text.

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 tool has one optional parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the primary use case and search capability. It could mention that results are returned as a list, but the output schema presumably handles that. Sufficient for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter explanation. The description compensates by giving search examples, but does not explicitly define the query parameter's role or format. This is adequate but not excellent.

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 clearly identifies the tool as exposing backend HTTP endpoints (NestJS routes) and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle imports or other code navigation. The verb 'Search' is implied, and the resource is well-defined.

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 search examples (e.g., 'POST carts', 'promotions') and explains the use case: locating where an endpoint is handled without grepping. It implicitly contrasts with tools that follow import edges, offering clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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