aps_dm_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that responses can be very large (100K+ tokens) and gives response guidance. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or idempotency; auth is implied but not stated. Still, the behavioral hints are helpful.

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 concise (~150 words), well-structured with clear sections, and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence contributes—no redundancy or fluff.

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 covers return values with specific guidance on what to focus on (folders, files) and what to ignore (relationship links, meta). It addresses complexity of a flexible endpoint and provides necessary context for effective use.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds value beyond schema by providing response size warning, path structure example, and guidance on focusing responses. This extra context elevates it above the baseline of 3.

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 'Call any APS Data Management API endpoint' and positions it as a raw/power-user tool. It explicitly distinguishes from simplified tools by naming several siblings, so purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (full control, pagination, POST/PATCH/DELETE, unhandled endpoints) and when to avoid (prefer simplified tools for everyday browsing). Names specific alternatives, making guidance actionable.

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