get_api_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does add one useful behavioral detail—that all related schemas are automatically parsed—which goes beyond a simple 'get' statement. However, it does not disclose what 'complete info' includes, whether authentication is needed, or any potential performance implications.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core function and the schema-parsing behavior.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read-only tool but omits details about the return format, how to discover valid swaggerName values, or any constraints. Given there is no output schema and no annotations, a more complete description would be beneficial, but it still manages to be minimally sufficient.

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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters (swaggerName, path, method), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: '獲取特定 API 的完整資訊' (get complete info for a specific API) and adds '自動解析所有相關 schemas' (automatically parse all related schemas), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_schema or search_apis. The verb and resource are specific and 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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or contexts where this tool should be preferred over siblings. The user is left to infer that it is for specific API lookups, but no explicit usage direction is given.

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