describe_api

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the return behavior, noting that Query APIs return only core parameters and queryableFields, which is useful context beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention potential errors, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits, leaving some gaps.

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 compact and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence earns its place, and the example parameter value makes the usage instantly understandable.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and return behavior. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying why a user would choose describe_api over search_api, but that is more of a usage-guideline gap than a completeness issue.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that api_name is an API name and gives a concrete example, which is sufficient for this single-parameter tool. More detail about accepted formats or validation rules would push it higher, but the provided semantics are clear.

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 fetches detailed parameter documentation for a specified ZStack API, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_api or execute_api beyond the tool name.

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 implies the tool is used when you already know the API name and need its parameter details, illustrated by the example "QueryVmInstance". There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over search_api or execute_api, so usage context is only implicit.

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