get_endpoint

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

No annotations are present, so description carries full burden. It states it 'gets details' implying read-only, but does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, or side effects. Some transparency from listing returned info, but significant gaps.

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?

One sentence, no waste, directly states purpose and what is returned.

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?

Tool is simple with one required param and no output schema. Description adequately indicates what details are returned. Could be improved by mentioning error handling (e.g., if slug not found), but overall sufficient for its 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% for the single parameter 'slug' (described as 'Endpoint slug'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get details' and clearly identifies resource 'specific endpoint', listing the types of details (URL, signature provider config, custom response settings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_endpoints or create_callback_endpoint.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied: when you need details for one endpoint, but no 'when-not' or alternative references are provided.

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