get-nezo-api-spec

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

With no annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: security rules (client-side avoidance of keys, server-side HMAC, idempotency, environment separation). It implies the tool is read-only and returns full documentation, but doesn't detail output format or side effects.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured: purpose sentence, usage context, list of api_names, then security rules. Some redundancy exists (e.g., security rules could be separate), but overall it's clear and organized.

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 should mention the format of the returned spec (e.g., JSON). It covers purpose, parameters, and security, but lacks details on authentication prerequisites and return structure, leaving some gaps.

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 schema already covers the api_name parameter well (100% coverage). The description adds value by listing all valid values with translations and notes, going beyond the schema's examples.

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 that the tool retrieves the full specification of the NEZO Alimtalk payment service API for a specific api_name, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-nezo-code-example. It lists all possible api_name values, making the purpose very specific.

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 tells when to use this tool (exact API spec lookup, not keyword search) and provides context for choosing api_name. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it, missing some guidance.

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