Hole API Funktions-Details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Holt' indicates a read operation, but it does not disclose potential error behavior, authentication requirements, or assumptions about the route existing. Since the output schema exists, the return format is covered, but additional behavioral context is minimal.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It contains no redundant information and earns its place entirely.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two parameters and an output schema. The description provides the essential purpose, while the schema and output schema fill in parameter details and return structure. It could benefit from explicit sibling differentiation or error behavior, but for this complexity level, it is largely complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (route and method), including examples for route. The description only adds a high-level statement that all parameters and types are included, which matches the schema baseline. No additional semantic value beyond the schema is provided.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving detailed metadata for a specific REST API endpoint, including all parameters and their types. The verb 'Holt' (retrieves) and resource 'spezifischen REST API Endpoint' are specific, and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like rest_api_list_functions or rest_api_search.

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 usage for a specific endpoint rather than listing or executing, but it does not explicitly reference alternatives or exclusion criteria. It lacks a note like 'Use rest_api_list_functions to list all endpoints.' Thus, guidance is implied but not explicit.

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