getApis

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read-style operation via '获取' and that it returns a list of APIs, but it does not mention output structure, pagination, error behavior, or whether the module name must already exist. This leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('获取') and states the exact scoped resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple one-parameter list tool, the description plus schema provide a usable minimum: call with a module name and get a list of APIs. However, it does not explain where valid module names come from, what the returned interface items look like, or how it relates to the sibling tools, so some context is missing.

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 schema already covers the single parameter fully: 'module' is required and described as '模块名称'. The description says '指定模块下' but adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a get operation on a resource ('指定模块下的所有接口列表') and implies a list result. It is distinguishable from sibling 'getApi' through the plural '所有接口' and from 'getModules' by targeting APIs rather than modules, though it does not explicitly reference these siblings.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus 'getApi' or 'getModules'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternative conditions, so the agent has to infer usage purely from the tool name and one-line purpose.

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