list_endpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and provides useful context: results include real path where known, scenario blast radius, and are sorted by highest reach. This clarifies what the agent should expect beyond a bare list, though it does not address pagination or response shape.

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?

One dense sentence conveys the resource, output fields, a caveat, and ordering. Every clause contributes information, and there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

The tool is simple, has no output schema, and the description adequately defines the return contents and sort order. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explain what 'scenario blast radius' means or how limit interacts with the listing, but overall the description gives enough for correct invocation.

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%, and the single 'limit' parameter is already documented as max rows with a default of 50. The description adds no additional meaning for this parameter, so the baseline score of 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 states exactly what the tool returns: the HTTP endpoints/operations the suite calls, including verb, route, and scenario blast radius. It also specifies ordering (highest-reach first), which makes the tool's purpose concrete and distinct from sibling tools like search_steps or impact.

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: use this when you need an inventory of all endpoints and their reach. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or related tools, so guidance is present only by implication.

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