list_apis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List all APIs' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't address critical behaviors like pagination (though the schema includes 'cursor' and 'limit'), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (no output schema exists). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to properly invoke and interpret results.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted words. Every element ('List', 'all', 'APIs', 'in a workspace') contributes essential information, making it efficient and immediately understandable despite its brevity.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it lacks necessary context about behavioral traits, output format, error handling, and differentiation from sibling tools. For a list operation with filtering parameters and no output schema, more guidance on result interpretation and tool selection would be needed for proper agent usage.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, filtering logic, or usage examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, with no value added by the description.

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 action ('List all') and resource ('APIs in a workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_api' or 'get_api_versions' that might retrieve specific APIs or versions, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over those alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_api' (for single API retrieval) and 'get_api_versions' (for version-specific data), the description lacks any context about selection criteria, prerequisites, or typical use cases for listing versus getting APIs.

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