notory_list_endpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context that the data comes from the 'live OpenAPI spec of the configured instance' and supports optional substring filtering. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or disclose potential limitations like pagination or rate limits, though the listing nature implies safety.

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 efficiently structured: the first sentence states the core function, the second gives usage guidance, and the third briefly mentions the optional filter. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description specifies the return fields (method, path, summary) and mentions the live OpenAPI source. It provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when to invoke it. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., unavailable spec) but is complete for a simple discovery tool.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with the 'search' parameter described as 'Case-insensitive substring filter on path or summary'. The description only reiterates 'filter by substring' without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 'List the available Notory API endpoints' with specific output fields (method, path, summary) and source (live OpenAPI spec). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like notory_request (which makes calls) and notory_list_assets (which lists assets).

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?

It gives explicit guidance to use this tool 'before using notory_request' to discover available endpoints. This provides a clear when-to-use context and names an alternative tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for actual data retrieval).

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