getApiInfo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'récupère' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the list of returned metadata fields adds context. However, it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or response format, which could be more explicit for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Récupère les métadonnées de l'API' followed by a colon-separated list of fields. Every element earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential purpose and the specific data returned. It could mention the response format or any prerequisites, but for a metadata getter this is largely sufficient, especially with the field enumeration.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered by default. The description adds value by specifying what metadata is retrieved, which is relevant output context. The baseline of 4 applies due to no parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Récupère' (retrieves) and clearly identifies the resource as API metadata, enumerating the exact fields returned (title, version, description, servers, contact, license). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getServerUrls or getSchemas, which focus on specific aspects.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative comparisons are provided. The description simply states what the tool does, but the context of sibling tools implies this is for general API info while others handle endpoints or schemas. This is implicit rather than explicit.

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