cloudflare_api

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden of safety disclosure. It warns '全权限直通' (full-permission passthrough) and that delete operations require explicit user authorization, which is critical risk information. It also explains auto-injection of token/account_id and placeholder replacement, adding valuable behavior context beyond a simple call.

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-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes examples and a safety warning without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and scannable.

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 complex raw API gateway, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and safety. It lacks explicit mention of the response format or error behavior, which could be inferred from 'REST API', but for an agent to invoke correctly, the provided info is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that {account_id} placeholders are automatically replaced, and provides concrete path examples for each parameter context. This adds meaningful semantics that the schema alone does not convey.

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 it is a 'Cloudflare REST API 通用网关' (universal gateway) that directly calls Cloudflare API via method/path/body, with explicit examples like GET /zones and POST /zones. This distinguishes it from specialized siblings like d1_query and cloudflare_deploy by positioning it as a general-purpose API passthrough.

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 clear context for usage: it is a universal gateway for direct API calls, auto-injects credentials, and points to CF_API.md for common paths. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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