list_endpoints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns a list of all available operations with specific fields (path, method, description) and explains how the output is used with other tools. However, it lacks details on potential rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs, which are common for API tools.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on output and usage. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second explains the output format, the third guides usage with siblings, and the fourth specifies the return type. There is no wasted text.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, output format, and how it fits into the workflow with sibling tools. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it adequately covers all necessary context for a discovery tool.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying that this tool requires no inputs and serves as a discovery mechanism, which is helpful context beyond the empty schema.

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 specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('available endpoints for the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies API'), distinguishing it from siblings by being the 'primary discovery tool' that returns operations with path, method, and description. It explicitly differentiates from tools like get_endpoint_schema and call_endpoint by explaining its role in providing the foundational data for those operations.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('primary discovery tool to understand the API's capabilities') and when to use alternatives, naming get_endpoint_schema and call_endpoint as tools to use after obtaining endpoint details from this list. It clearly sets the context for usage in the API exploration workflow.

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