list_endpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It discloses that results are grouped by tag, and each endpoint includes id, method, path, and summary. It also notes the optional filters. This is solid transparency, though it omits details like pagination or auth, which are not critical for a listing tool.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then explains return format and links to the next step. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 (optional filters, no output schema), and the description fully covers its behavior, return fields, grouping, and relationship to get_endpoint. Nothing important is missing for a list tool of this complexity.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description reinforces that both filters are optional and what they filter on, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'List all Pancake REST API endpoints, grouped by tag.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting the returned id can be passed to get_endpoint for the full contract, making its role as a high-level list endpoint explicit.

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 explicitly names get_endpoint as the alternative for full contract details, effectively telling the agent when to use this tool vs another. It also explains optional filtering by tag or keyword, which guides usage.

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