get_http_endpoints

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses prerequisite (load_project), supported frameworks, unsupported annotation forms, default maxResults, and output format. This provides sufficient behavioral context.

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?

Description is well-structured with labeled sections (USAGE, OUTPUT, Supports, Options). It is front-loaded with purpose and efficiently communicates key details without fluff.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return format (route->handler entries with details) and limitations (unsupported annotations). It is complete given the tool's 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 coverage is 100%, and description adds minimal value: it restates maxResults parameter with default. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents the parameter completely.

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 assembles the project's HTTP route table, with specific verb 'Assemble' and resource 'HTTP route table'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on HTTP endpoints.

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 mentions that load_project must be called first, and notes that projects without supported frameworks return empty. It also lists unsupported Spring annotations, but does not compare to alternatives.

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