get_sample_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'a list of endpoint examples' as a string, which is minimal behavioral info. It doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the examples include (e.g., sample URLs, methods). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second specifies the return type. There's no wasted text, and it's structured efficiently. However, it could be slightly more concise by combining sentences, but it's already minimal.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns: str'), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It states the purpose and return type, but for a tool with no annotations, it should ideally include more behavioral context (e.g., what the examples look like, if it's a static list). The output schema handles return values, so that's covered, but overall completeness is minimal.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline. It correctly doesn't mention any parameters, which aligns with the schema. No extra value is added, but none is required for a parameterless tool.

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 tool's purpose: 'provide examples of major endpoints for the Yaizu City Smart City API.' It specifies the verb ('provide') and resource ('endpoint examples'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_api_details' or 'list_saved_apis' which might also return endpoint information. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_api_details' (which might provide detailed endpoint info) or 'execute_api_endpoint' (which might use endpoints), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. There's no explicit or implied usage guidance beyond the basic purpose.

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