get_endpoint

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

The description fully discloses behavior: exact match returns card, substring match returns closest endpoint, no match returns did-you-mean list. It also details the card's contents (host, summary, params, response fields). No annotations are provided, but the description covers all relevant behavioral traits.

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 concise at four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then providing examples and behavior details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), the description fully covers input behavior, matching logic, and output contents. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has one parameter 'path' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds crucial meaning: provides an example path, explains how the path is matched, and clarifies the behavior for exact vs. approximate matches. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 returns a full reference card for an endpoint path, with specific verb 'Return' and resource 'reference card'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_example (examples) and list_endpoints (listing) by focusing on a single endpoint's card.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need a reference card for a specific endpoint path. It explains input expectations (exact path) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives among siblings.

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