swagger_get_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explain output shape, auth or configuration needs, side effects, or how resolveRefs/maxChars affect returned data. The schema describes parameter effects but not the broader behavior.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is concise and easy to parse, though slightly under-specified for a tool with five parameters.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and a five-parameter input schema. The description does not clarify what 'detailed information' includes, how responses are structured, or what setup may be required. An agent could infer basic invocation from the schema but lacks important behavioral context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning; it relies on the detailed schema for path, method, maxChars, environment, and resolveRefs semantics.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific endpoint from Swagger'). The word 'specific' hints at differentiation from list-type siblings, but no explicit distinction from related tools like swagger_fetch or swagger_list_endpoints is made.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as swagger_list_endpoints, swagger_get_schema, or api_get. It does not state preconditions, exclusions, or which sibling should be chosen in other scenarios.

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