list_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool returns endpoint names and implies a read-only query, but it does not state whether any reservation or topology state is required, nor mention side effects or output behavior beyond names. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary detail. It states the core semantic in minimal space.

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?

This is a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It is nearly complete, but it does not explicitly connect the tool to the route-planning workflow or tell the agent when to prefer it over sibling tools.

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 tool has zero parameters and the empty input schema already has 100% description coverage, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description adds orienting context by defining what endpoints are returned, which is sufficient.

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 identifies the resource returned (logical endpoint names) and scopes it to 'this topology can route between,' which also implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cards and list_routes. However, the action 'list' is only present in the tool name, not the description, so it is slightly elliptical.

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 phrase 'can route between' implies this tool is used when an agent needs available route endpoints, likely before plan_route. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion of cases where list_cards or list_routes would be more appropriate.

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