get_swagger_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'overview and statistics' but does not specify what data is returned, whether it is read-only, if there are pagination or size limits, or what the output structure looks like. This lack of detail is a notable gap.

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 verb '獲取' and clearly identifies the resource. There is no unnecessary wording or repetition.

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 tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema), but the description could be more complete by elaborating on what 'overview and statistics' includes. Without an output schema, the agent must infer return values, and the vague phrasing leaves room for ambiguity. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 already describes the only parameter (swaggerName) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable for a single, self-explanatory parameter.

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 action ('獲取' - get) and resource ('Swagger 檔案的整體概覽和統計資訊' - overall overview and statistics of the Swagger file), which is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like get_schema or get_api_info. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 such as list_swaggers, get_schema, or search_apis. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a Swagger file name from list_swaggers) or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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