get_api_endpoints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool reads from a local cache, makes no API calls, and requires sync_project as a prerequisite if data isn't cached. However, it doesn't specify the exact behavior when data is absent (e.g., error vs. empty result), leaving minor ambiguity.

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 sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a necessary precondition in the second. No redundant wording; every word contributes.

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 is simple and the description covers purpose, data scope, and the cache prerequisite, while also listing the output fields. It lacks detail on failure behavior when not cached, but given the lack of an output schema, the field enumeration is helpful. Overall the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 both 'projectId' and 'name' are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, hence a baseline score of 3.

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 specifies it retrieves API endpoint definitions from a local cache, listing included fields (method, URL, variables, headers, response fields). It also distinguishes itself by stating 'No API calls', setting it apart from siblings like sync_project or get_project_yaml.

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?

It provides explicit guidance to run sync_project first if not cached, implying when this tool is appropriate (local cached data) and the prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the mention of sync_project serves as a clear usage context. A small gap is no explicit 'when not to use' beyond the no-API-calls note.

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