get_endpoint_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the bare purpose: an Auth Patterns table explaining how schema auth values map to curl headers, and a detailed NOTATION legend for interpreting the returned schema. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only semantics, but the get-oriented purpose makes side effects unlikely.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage in the first two sentences, then organized into two reference tables. While the notation legend is long, it earns its place by compensating for the absence of an output schema. The table format is scannable and each section has clear value.

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?

For a moderate-complexity lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key gaps: what is returned (resolved URL, auth, schema), how to interpret the returned schema (notation legend), and the end-to-end workflow (after list_endpoints, before bash curl). It lacks error/edge-case behavior but is otherwise complete.

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%, with each parameter (api, path, method) already well-described in the schema. The description adds workflow context ('Call this after list_endpoints') but no additional parameter-level semantics, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Returns the full context for a specific endpoint including resolved URL, auth requirements, and schema.' It distinguishes from siblings by framing it as the post-list_endpoints step for obtaining an endpoint contract, and from get_call_context by focusing on endpoint schema rather than call context.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this to understand an endpoint before constructing a curl command to execute via the bash tool' and 'Call this after list_endpoints to get the endpoint contract.' This names both the predecessor tool (list_endpoints) and the downstream integration (bash/curl), establishing a clear workflow.

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