List Service Endpoints

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It accurately indicates a read-only listing operation and adds context about the types of endpoints, but it does not disclose behavior like pagination (via the 'top' parameter), filtering, or whether only currently running flows are included. It adds some value but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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, tightly written sentence (18 words) that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place 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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description states the core purpose and endpoint types, but it omits explanation of the 'top' parameter and any note about the response format or potential empty results. It is minimally viable but not fully 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 coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the only parameter 'top'. The schema provides default/min/max constraints, but the description should add meaning about its purpose (e.g., maximum number of endpoints returned). This is a gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'runtime service endpoints (URLs)' and scopes it to 'deployed integration flows' with protocol examples (HTTP, SOAP, OData). This clearly distinguishes 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?

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (to get URLs of deployed integration flows), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The scoping is clear enough for most cases, so this earns a 4.

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