describe_api

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

No annotations are present, but the description discloses the tool's non-executing nature by saying it returns a schema and is meant for pre-call validation. It implies a safe read operation, though it doesn't explicitly mention auth or error behaviors.

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 two-sentence Korean description is compact, front-loaded, and every word contributes to its purpose. No redundancy or filler.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential return value (input schema) and the usage context. It adequately covers what an agent needs to know, including the relationship to call_api.

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 only parameter operationId is fully documented in the schema with an example. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond reaffirming that it refers to a specific operationId, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 returns the input field schema for a specific operationId, using the verb '반환합니다' and specifying the resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool call_api by positioning itself as a pre-check step.

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?

Explicitly states it is used to check required parameters before calling call_api, providing a clear use case. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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