List Linkable Endpoints

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, so no safety burden is on the description. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema: it reveals the returned content (path, method, version), scopes results to endpoints linkable to a test case, and notes that project context is required. This is meaningful additional transparency.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the two essential extras: how to act on the result and the project-context requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the read-only annotation, the absence of an output schema, and a modest two-parameter input schema, the description covers the key missing pieces: what is returned (path, method, version), the prerequisite context, and the next action. It could be slightly more explicit about how project context is established or which sibling should be used for non-linkable endpoints, but it is sufficiently complete for reliable invocation.

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?

Both parameters are already well described in the input schema: specId is the API specification Public Id, and versionId is an optional spec version with default behavior. Schema description coverage is high, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the exact resource: endpoints of an API spec that a test case can be linked to. It also states the returned attributes (path, method, version), which clearly distinguishes this from generic endpoint-listing tools like list_endpoints or list_specs.

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 gives clear usage context: it lists linkable endpoints, not arbitrary endpoints, and it explicitly directs the next step with 'Use link_endpoint to establish the link.' It also states the prerequisite 'Requires project context.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to avoid, but the scope is clear enough.

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