pt_api_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context about the size of the API surface and valid query forms, but it does not disclose result ordering, pagination/limit behavior, or return format.

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 with no wasted language. The core search purpose is front-loaded, and the query examples are compact and directly useful.

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 read-only API search tool with no output schema, the description covers the main calling context and query forms. It is still missing enough about result shape and limit semantics that an agent might not know precisely what to expect from a search.

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 the required query parameter well with class-name, method-fragment, and Class.method examples, but it does not explain the optional limit parameter beyond its schema default.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: search Packet Tracer's IPC/scripting API. It adds useful scope details (6000+ methods, 374 classes) and ties the tool to pt_run_js, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with other lookup or catalog siblings.

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 workflow: look up API details for use with pt_run_js, and it gives query examples. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives such as pt_catalog or pt_run_js directly, nor does it state any exclusions.

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