list_endpoints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing and filtering but does not clarify whether the spec is loaded from the spec_path at call time, what counts as a 'loaded spec,' or what the output structure looks like. This ambiguity is notable given the spec_path parameter.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the filtering capabilities are stated in the second sentence, making it easy to scan.

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?

The tool has low complexity and a fully documented schema, but the description does not clarify how it relates to spec_load or search_endpoints, nor does it describe the return format despite there being no output schema. The 'loaded spec' wording also creates ambiguity around whether a prior load step is required. Overall it is adequate but leaves some gaps for the agent to resolve.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds slight context by mentioning method and tag filters, but does not explain format values or the relationship between spec_path and a 'loaded spec,' so it stays at the baseline.

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 states the verb ('List') and resource ('all API endpoints in a loaded spec'), and adds the filtering dimensions by method or tag. This differentiates it from siblings like get_endpoint (single endpoint) and search_endpoints (search), making the tool's purpose immediately recognizable.

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 implies this tool is for broad listing with optional filters, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_endpoints or get_endpoint. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given, leaving some routing decisions to inference.

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