action1_get_endpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose the response content (hardware, agent version, last contact, group memberships, custom attributes), but it omits error behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This adds some value but not complete behavioral transparency.

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 one concise sentence that leads with the primary action and then lists the included details. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and response fields, which is sufficient for a simple read operation. Missing error handling or alternative guidance are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity, so a 4 is warranted.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description's mention of 'by id' adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 gets a single endpoint by id, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. The included detail list (hardware, agent version, etc.) distinguishes it from sibling tools like action1_list_endpoints.

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 implies usage for retrieving one endpoint's full details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over action1_list_endpoints or any exclusions. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.

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