describe_api_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden, but it only states what data is returned ('full description and input schema'), without addressing side effects, errors, or security considerations. The phrase 'Call before execute_api_command' implies a safe preflight check, but it does not explicitly declare the operation as read-only because the agent is expected to infer that from the name. It's adequate but minimal.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and a clear call-to-action. No wasted words.

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 input and the presence of an output schema that presumably documents the return structure, the description sufficiently enables an agent to understand the tool's role. Could be enhanced with a note on the source of the command name, but overall it's adequate for a low-complexity tool.

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%, and the description provides no information about the single required parameter, `name`. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate by explaining where `name` comes from (e.g., a command name from list_api_commands) or its format. This is a significant gap for an agent preparing to invoke the tool.

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 identifies the tool's function—retrieving the full description and input schema for a single API command. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a strong verb, and while 'Call before execute_api_command' hints at a workflow, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_api_commands. Overall, purpose is clear but not outstanding.

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 instruction 'Call before execute_api_command' provides an explicit usage guideline with a clear temporal context. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative mentions, such as when not to use this tool or how it compares to enumeration tools.

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