App Openapi Allow Auth Paths

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only implies read-only via '查询'. It says nothing about permission/auth requirements, whether app_name must reference an installed app, or the scope of the returned path list.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, with no annotations the description should carry more behavioral context (auth needs, scope, relationship to sibling add/query tools) than the one-line query statement provides.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (including the app_name provenance note). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 when the schema 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 states a specific verb (查询/query) and resource (应用 OpenAPI 允许的鉴权路径), so an agent can tell it is a read operation over OpenAPI auth paths. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like app_openapi_app_detail or app_config_auth_paths, keeping it 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling auth-path tools (app_config_auth_paths, app_openapi_add_auth_path), nor any stated prerequisites such as needing an app installed. Usage is only implied by the verb '查询'.

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