asset_endpoint_enum

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is passive and read-only, detailing the analysis sources and output types. It could mention whether loading JS bundles triggers network requests, but overall it is transparent about its behavior and limitations.

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 compact (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds information: function, sources, output, caveats, prerequisite. No redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers all key aspects: input, behavior (passive), prerequisite, and expected output (candidate endpoints, method guesses, confidence). It lacks detail on output format or confidence interpretation, but is largely 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?

The single parameter maxScripts is fully described in schema (default 10, cap 30, controls time). The description adds context about parsing external JS bundles, aligning with the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds marginal value but 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 states the tool enumerates API endpoints using network logs and static analysis, with specific sources (DOM, inline scripts, JS bundles). It distinguishes itself as passive and shallow, and mentions a prerequisite (browser_open), 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?

The description specifies it is for passive analysis only, explicitly excluding parameter fuzzing and privilege escalation detection. It also notes the prerequisite of browser_open. However, it lacks direct comparison to sibling tools like api_probe or asset_endpoint_probe, so guidance on alternatives is implicit.

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