opn_api_describe

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, but 'describe' strongly implies a read-only introspection call and the description does disclose what information is returned. It says nothing about permissions, failure modes when the path is unknown, or whether paths must come from opn_api_search, which is a real gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single dense sentence plus an example, front-loaded with the returned data. The punctuation-as-list style ('Method, path args, body fields...') is slightly awkward but wastes nothing.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers what is returned and gives a path example. It still leaves the agent guessing how to obtain a valid path and what happens for an unrecognized endpoint, which matters because it is likely a prerequisite step in a multi-call workflow.

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. The example "firewall/alias/add_item" usefully establishes the path syntax, but 'path args' is ambiguous and the description never states whether the value is a bare endpoint identifier, needs a leading slash, or is a full URL.

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 names the resource precisely: it returns the method, path args, body fields (types, required, options) and search params of an endpoint, with a concrete example path. An agent can distinguish it from opn_api_search (find endpoints) and opn_api (invoke them), though the verb ('describe'/'look up') is only implied by the fragmentary phrasing.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The natural workflow — call this to learn an endpoint's contract before invoking it via opn_api — is left entirely to inference, and no sibling is named as an alternative.

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