download_apis

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

Without annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as potential side effects (e.g., overwriting files), authentication requirements beyond an API key, rate limits, or the scope of 'all APIs' (e.g., all in project? all versions?). The description is too brief to ensure an agent understands behavioral implications.

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 a single concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose and required inputs. No unnecessary words or redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 omits return value details (e.g., success indication, file paths). It also does not mention error handling or prerequisites. For a simple download tool, it covers the basics but lacks completeness for robust agent usage.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor semantic value by noting the apiKey can be 'read rule or user-specified', but this is a small addition. No further parameter context is provided 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?

The description clearly states the action (download all APIs from Apifox to a specified directory) and mentions the key parameters (rootDir, projectId, apiKey). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'import_openapi', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool over others.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any usage constraints. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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