api_help

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the return format ('Markdown table of API endpoints and their MCP implementation status'), which is a key behavioral trait. While it does not mention side effects, the tool is a read-only reference, and the description adequately implies that.

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 two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second specifies the output format. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 parameterless reference tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. There are no missing prerequisites, side effects, or complex behaviors to disclose, and the output schema covers detailed return values.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to explain beyond what the schema already shows, and the description correctly omits parameter details.

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's function: 'Get Node-RED API endpoint reference with implementation status.' This is a specific verb (get) plus a clear resource (API endpoint reference) and a distinguishing detail (implementation status). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_flows or get_nodes, which concern runtime data rather than API metadata.

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: an agent would use this when needing an API endpoint reference or implementation status. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The siblings suggest a broader context, but no explicit guidance is given.

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