v2_endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that — the map is derived from the controller's own GUI bundles and probed live, and it explicitly includes what is NOT available and why, which is meaningful for a discovery tool.

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 descriptive sentence plus one short imperative, both front-loaded and free of waste. The build version and provenance are packed in without padding.

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 read-only discovery tool with an optional filter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool yields (a verified endpoint map that includes unavailable paths and reasons). It does not describe the shape of the returned data, but otherwise nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the single optional 'filter' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the burden.

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 identifies a specific resource — a verified v2 endpoint map for build 6.2.14.11 — and its provenance (GUI bundles, live probes). It is clearly a discovery/reference tool, though it lacks an explicit verb (list/retrieve) and does not name a sibling to distinguish from, e.g., v2_get.

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?

"Read this before guessing a path" gives clear when-to-use guidance: consult this tool before attempting endpoint discovery by trial. It doesn't name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the intended usage context is unambiguous.

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