List VIPMP API endpoints

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds behavioral details: use of a pre-built index for fast response, fallback to live extraction with timing estimates, and suggestion to refresh locally. No contradiction with annotations.

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 plus a brief note) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted 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?

Given the absence of parameters, presence of annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description fully covers needed context: it explains the two execution modes, performance characteristics, return format, and a related tool for refresh.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description need not add parameter info. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional parameter description is necessary.

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 extracts every HTTP endpoint (method+path) from VIPMP docs and returns a Markdown table grouped by resource area. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like describe_vipmp_endpoint which focus on individual endpoints.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to get a full list of endpoints) and provides performance notes and a tip to call rebuild_vipmp_index for refresh. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but for a zero-parameter tool the guidance is adequate.

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