获取接口详情

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the non-obvious behaviors of recursive $ref expansion and circular-reference marking ($ref-cycle), which go beyond what annotations or schema could convey. It doesn't cover error cases or auth, but for a read-only detail fetch, this is solid behavioral disclosure.

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 compact paragraph with a front-loaded purpose statement followed by parameter clarifications, earning its space. The odd 'source 同上' (same as above) reference is confusing without external context, slightly marring an otherwise efficient structure.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential ground: return contents, expansion behavior, cycle handling, and exact-match requirements. While it could note error behavior for non-existent paths, and the lack of annotations in the context, the description is adequate for an agent to invoke this tool effectively.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 with the schema doing the heavy lifting. The description restates the parameters in prose and adds the 'path must exactly match' caveat, but this mirrors the schema text. The description's value-add lies in return semantics rather than parameter meaning, so no score above baseline is warranted.

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 a specific verb+resource structure ('按 method + path 返回接口完整详情' - returns complete API details by method + path), enumerating return contents (parameters, request body, response structure) and explicitly noting the recursive $ref expansion behavior. This $ref-cycle detail meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like get-openapi-spec and search-apis.

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 gives practical usage context by noting the path must exactly match and directing users to query with search-apis first ('可先用 search-apis 查询'). It provides clear context for the workflow, though it lacks explicit exclusions or direct comparison against get-spec-overview/get-openapi-spec siblings.

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