analyze_api

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool analyzes API structure but does not reveal if it's read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the analysis entails (e.g., returns a report, modifies data). This leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for efficiency.

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 the tool has 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on analysis scope, behavioral traits, and parameter meaning, making it incomplete for informed use despite the output schema's assistance.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not add any semantic details about the 'domain' parameter. It does not explain what a domain is (e.g., URL, name, identifier), format expectations, or examples, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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's purpose as 'Analyze API structure for a specific domain,' which includes a verb ('analyze') and resource ('API structure'), making it clear what it does. However, it lacks specificity about what 'analyze' entails (e.g., endpoints, schemas, security) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_domains' or 'search_requests,' leaving it vague in comparison.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after importing data), or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_domains' for domain listing or 'search_requests' for request analysis, offering no usage direction.

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