List Service Endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It does not mention authentication requirements, whether only active endpoints are returned, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is too minimal.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it could be structured better with parameter details. For a simple tool, it is acceptable but not exemplary.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not indicate what the response contains (e.g., list of objects with name, URL, type). The tool's return value is not described, making it incomplete for an agent.

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 schema has one parameter ('top') with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'top' does (e.g., maximum number of endpoints to return), leaving the agent uninformed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('runtime service endpoints (URLs)'), and clearly states the scope ('exposed by deployed integration flows (HTTP, SOAP, OData, etc.)'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'list_integration_flows' or 'list_deployed_artifacts'.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools, such as 'list_deployed_artifacts' or 'get_integration_flow', the agent lacks context on when to choose this one.

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