describe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes further by detailing the shape of the payload (endpoint type, URI form, example, typed params, config fields, middleware params) and the CLI equivalence, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a single closing sentence on the parameter. The middle clause enumerating returned fields is dense but earns its place since there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating the fields returned for each endpoint and middleware. Combined with the 100%-covered parameter and readOnly annotation, an agent has enough to invoke it 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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already explains that name accepts a scheme, alias, endpoint type or middleware and that omission returns the whole catalog. The description only adds the 'narrow to one entry' framing, so it stays at the baseline of 3 when 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 generic name 'describe' is rescued by the description, which states a specific resource: the endpoints and middlewares this build supports. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_routes/server_info by framing itself as a catalog of available endpoint types and middleware, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 gives parameter-level usage ('Pass name to narrow it to one entry', 'Omit it for the whole catalog'), which implies the two modes of use. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as list_routes or server_info, so the when-to-use guidance is only inferred.

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