get_endpoint

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

No annotations provided, but description mentions that internal component $refs are resolved inline, a useful behavioral detail. It does not disclose potential side effects, error handling, or authentication needs, but as a read-only operation, the description is adequate.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage options. Front-loaded and 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned content (parameters, request body, responses, security) and mentions $ref resolution. It lacks error handling details but is sufficient for an endpoint detail retrieval 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the two identification approaches (method+path vs operationId) and directing to get_types for types, which is helpful beyond the 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves full details of a specific endpoint including parameters, request body, responses, and security requirements. It distinguishes from siblings like get_schema (schemas) and get_types (TypeScript declarations) by focusing on endpoint details.

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?

Explicitly provides two alternative identification methods (method+path or operationId) and directs users to get_types for TypeScript type declarations. Though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, the alternative is clear.

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