列出分类下的接口

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior, error cases, pagination, or limits. For a simple list tool, it is adequate but lacks explicit safety or boundary details.

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 is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes the essential returned fields. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the action, the input context, and the output fields. Minor gaps like pagination or invalid-category behavior are not critical for basic usage, but the lack of any explicit read-only note leaves a small gap.

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% – the single parameter 'category' is already fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'all APIs under a category', and specifies the returned fields (name, route, docId). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_categories or search_apis without ambiguity.

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 the alternatives (list_categories, search_apis, get_api_doc). It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer selection based on the tool name and context.

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