查看接口文档

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly describes a read-only lookup action ('查看') and spells out what the returned document contains. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a read-only doc retrieval tool this 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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence earns its place by describing what the tool returns and how to find the target API.

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 3 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, result contents, and discovery workflow. It could note multi-match candidate behavior, but that is already in the parameter schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a loose connection to list_apis/search_apis as a discovery step but does not add parameter-level detail 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 (查看/view) and the resource (某个接口的完整文档), and enumerates the document sections. It also distinguishes itself from list_apis and search_apis by implying those are for discovery while this one retrieves the full documentation.

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?

It gives clear usage context by telling the agent to '可先用 list_apis 或 search_apis 找到接口', i.e., discover first with siblings then use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sequencing is strong enough guidance.

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