get_api_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly frames the tool as a read-only documentation lookup and lists the content returned, but it does not disclose behavior for unknown classes, ambiguous simple names, or potential errors. This is acceptable for a simple lookup but not richly transparent.

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?

Two efficient sentences: the first states the purpose and return content, the second gives exact invocation guidance. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what to pass and what to expect back. It lacks only explicit routing guidance against sibling tools and behavior for ambiguous simple names, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 parameter fully, including the full and simple class name examples. The description mostly restates the schema rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('full documentation for a specific class'), and enumerates the returned content: method signatures, JavaDoc, annotations, parameters. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like get_document or search_api.

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 explains how to invoke the tool by passing a full or simple class name, which implies it should be used when you already know a target class. However, it never states when to prefer this over search_api, browse_api_category, or get_document, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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