获取接口文档概览

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states it reads the document (implying read-only) but does not disclose potential side effects like network access, caching, or error behavior. However, it does mention the default-document fallback, adding some transparency beyond the schema.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, then parameter details. No wasted words; it efficiently conveys purpose, usage context, and parameter behavior.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies what the overview includes and the fallback behavior. It could mention error handling or that it does not return the full spec, but that is not essential given the sibling context.

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% and the description essentially repeats the schema's parameter info without adding new meaning. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and since the description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, a 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 states the tool reads Swagger/OpenAPI documents and returns overview information (info, servers, tags stats, total endpoints). It explicitly frames it as the first step before using other tools, distinguishing it from siblings like get-api-detail or get-openapi-spec.

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 provides clear usage context ('usually this is the first step before using other tools') and explains the optional source parameter falls back to a default document. It does not explicitly name alternates or when not to use it, but the context strongly implies its role.

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