sophos_list_endpoints

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that results are paginated. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description confirms safe read behavior. There is no contradiction. However, it could further clarify that the tool may return large result sets or require specific permissions.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the action and resource, list key filters, and note pagination. No unnecessary words. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given 17 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is adequate but incomplete. It mentions paginated results but does not describe the return format or pagination mechanism (e.g., page_key). It also omits details about required parameters (tenant_id) and the meaning of openWorldHint. More output context would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description summarizes key filter parameters (type, health, tamper, hostname, search) but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the relationship between parameters or their default behaviors.

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's purpose: listing endpoints in a Sophos Central tenant. It specifies the verb 'List', the resource 'endpoints', and mentions optional filtering criteria. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like sophos_list_tenants or sophos_list_alerts.

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 implies usage for listing all endpoints with filters, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sophos_list_migration_endpoints or sophos_list_policy_endpoints. It also lacks mention of prerequisites, such as the need for an authenticated session or a valid tenant_id.

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