list_app_endpoints

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: endpoints exposing 0 columns are broken, return only item metadata, and silently discard writes. This is valuable diagnostic information beyond what annotations provide.

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 with no filler. The core listing behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the important edge-case warning follows naturally in the second. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully names the returned fields, but it doesn't fully compensate for the absence of parameter documentation, especially the optional organizationId. The behavioral warning is useful, but the tool definition remains slightly incomplete for confident invocation in all contexts.

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 needed to compensate by explaining appId and organizationId. It only implies appId through the phrase 'an app', and organizationId is never mentioned at all. The agent must rely on the raw schema for parameter meaning.

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 a specific verb and resource: it 'List[s] an app's REST endpoints'. It also enumerates exactly what information is returned (slug, board, allowed methods, column counts), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_apps or get_app_spec.

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 the tool is for inspecting the endpoint configuration of a single app, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't say when to prefer get_app_spec or list_apps, so sibling selection is partly left to inference.

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