swagger_list_endpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only listing operation and mentions optional fuzzy search and tag/method filtering, but it does not say anything about output format, ordering, ranking, or result size. It is not misleading, but it is thin on behavioral detail.

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 that states the core action first and then the optional narrowing dimensions. There is no filler, parenthetical clutter, or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a listing/search tool with a fully documented 6-parameter schema, the description plus schema covers the main invocation choices well. It does not describe the response format or default result limits, but 'List API endpoints' and the maxChars parameter make the return kind sufficiently clear for an agent to proceed.

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 every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The tool description only re-identifies 'keyword', 'tag', and 'method' filtering, which adds minimal meaning beyond the structured parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('API endpoints from Swagger'), and adds that results can be narrowed by keyword, tag, and method. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as swagger_get_endpoint or swagger_fetch, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explains what filters are available, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like swagger_get_endpoint, api_get, or swagger_get_schema. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or 'use X instead' hints, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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