api_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real invocation mechanics (base path resolution, leading-slash requirement, query encoding) and points to the llms.txt reference for endpoint specifics. It stops short of rate limits, error semantics or pagination behavior, which matters for an open-world passthrough.

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?

Four dense sentences with zero padding: capability, example endpoints, path resolution rule, parameter encoding, and a reference link. Front-loaded with the capability and constraint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the reference URL offloads endpoint-by-endpoint detail. For a generic open-world passthrough, however, the agent still lacks guidance on pagination and failure behavior, which a definition of this type should at least sketch.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it largely does: path is relative to /api/<version> and must start with '/', params are query parameters with repeated keys for lists. Only the concrete value format of params (types, escaping) and pagination-conveying params remain undocumented.

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 (read/GET) on a clearly scoped resource: any X-Series endpoint not covered by a dedicated tool, with concrete example paths (/shifts, /services, /serialnumbers). The phrase 'any other' implicitly distinguishes it from the dozens of dedicated sibling list_*/get_* tools without needing to name them.

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?

'Read any other X-Series endpoint' implies this is the fallback when no dedicated tool exists, but that is left to inference rather than stated. There is no explicit instruction to prefer list_products/search_sales/get_sale when they fit, and no guidance on when the generic path is inappropriate.

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