endpoint

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and safety. It doesn't mention whether close is destructive, if operations are reversible, or what happens to existing endpoints. It only scopes the tool to 'lifecycle' and gives parameter usage, but lacks behavioral detail.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, dense with relevant details, and no filler. Every word 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers operation semantics and parameter mapping but omits return values, error conditions, and side-effect details. It's sufficient for a basic understanding but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does map op values to parameters (open uses profile, close uses ep), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but it doesn't define what ep or profile actually represent or the behavior of the default op=list.

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 handles 'Host endpoint lifecycle only' and enumerates the specific operations (list, open, close). It distinguishes itself from the console tool for serial ports, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: it says when to use profile= (for open) and ep= (for close), and it directly says 'Not for serial ports — use the console tool,' which gives both an exclusion and an alternative.

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