App Openapi App Detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '查询' implies a read operation, but nothing is said about authorization requirements, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded. However, it merely restates the tool title and name, providing no additional value.

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 and schema coverage is full, so return values and parameters need little explanation. But the description omits any usage context and fails to differentiate this tool from the numerous app_openapi_* siblings, leaving an agent without enough information to select it confidently.

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 every parameter in detail, including the app_name sourcing note. The description adds no parameter information beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 '查询应用 OpenAPI 详情' states a verb (query) and a resource (application OpenAPI details), but 'OpenAPI 详情' is vague about what is actually retrieved. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like app_openapi_allow_auth_paths or app_openapi_add_auth_path, which also concern app OpenAPI configuration.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text when to choose app_openapi_app_detail over the other app_openapi_* tools.

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