api_describe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is a read-only/local operation, that no side effects occur, or how the tool name is resolved - a meaningful gap for a meta-tool that could mislead an agent into thinking it invokes the target tool.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the two outputs (schema and notes). It is efficient, though slightly terse given the meta nature of the tool.

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 one-parameter introspection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the minimum: what it returns and that it takes a name. It omits the crucial clarification that it describes a tool rather than executing it, which the sibling-heavy context makes necessary.

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 'tool' parameter is fully documented in the schema (name as in tools/list). The description adds only the requirement that the name match, which is baseline-level value given the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool returns the full input schema and notes for a named tool, which is a recognizable meta/introspection purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from the similar meta-tool api_search in the sibling list, leaving ambiguity about when introspection-by-name is preferred over search.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus api_search or vs reading the parent tool's own schema directly. The 'по имени' phrase implies it requires a known tool name, but that constraint is not framed as a usage rule.

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