api_describe

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the output schema covers the return shape. The description adds the useful fact that content comes from the installed version's type library (so results reflect the local install, not a remote catalog), but says nothing about performance, caching, or behavior on an invalid path.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a tidy Args block. Little waste; the formatting is appropriate for a two-parameter introspection tool.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and both parameters are fully described, so the essentials are covered for a read-only introspection tool. The remaining gap is routing relative to the sibling API-discovery tools, which matters in a toolset this dense.

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 carries the full burden and largely meets it: it enumerates all three path modes with concrete examples and explains that filter is conditional ('When listing an interface'). This is well above the baseline the schema would otherwise provide, though edge cases like a nonexistent path are unaddressed.

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 ('Describe part of the CSiBridge API') plus the source of truth ('read from the installed version's type library'). This is clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely-related siblings api_search and api_enum, so an agent must infer which API-introspection tool to pick.

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 three modes of the path argument imply how the tool is used (function path, interface path, empty), which is useful context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool over api_search or api_enum, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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