Get API details

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool returns (signature, arguments, fields, flavor availability) and the acceptable input patterns. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but the read-only nature is implicit. Given the domain, this is sufficiently 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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and then elaborating on input specifics. There is no redundancy, and every sentence adds useful information. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's purpose (retrieving full API documentation) and the absence of an output schema, the description omits details about the output format or structure (e.g., JSON vs text) and error behavior. While the input semantics are well-covered, the output expectations are only vaguely described. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced.

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 description adds significant value beyond the schema for the 'name' parameter, providing concrete examples (qualified, bare, event literals) and stating case-insensitivity. The schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters have descriptions, but the description enhances understanding of acceptable input formats.

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 tool retrieves full documentation for a function, event, or table by name, including signature, typed arguments/returns/payload/fields, and cross-flavor availability. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like diff_api, get_source_file, 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 provides guidance on input formats (qualified names, bare names, event literals) and case-insensitivity, which aids correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_source_file or search_api, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.

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