GetDataServiceApi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a query operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm if it's safe or has side effects. It also lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the response looks like (especially critical since there's no output schema).

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('查询'), though it could be slightly more specific (e.g., clarifying '开发态' means development state). There's no wasted text.

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 complexity (a read operation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '详情' (details) includes in the response, which is critical for the agent to understand the return value. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more behavioral and output context to be fully helpful.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters (ProjectId, ApiId, TenantId) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as which parameters are required or how they interact. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 '查询数据服务API开发态的详情' clearly states the action (query) and resource (data service API development details), but it's somewhat vague about what 'development details' specifically entail. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like GetDataServiceApiTest or GetDataServicePublishedApi, which also retrieve API-related information but for different states.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a ProjectId or ApiId), nor does it clarify the relationship with sibling tools like GetDataServiceApiTest (for test details) or GetDataServicePublishedApi (for published details), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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