搜索接口列表

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the matching fields, case-insensitivity, return fields (method/path/summary/tags), behavior when keyword is omitted (returns all), and limit constraints. This is ample transparency for a read-only search tool.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and integrates parameter notes. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary words, though the inline parameter list could be slightly clearer as separate points.

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 description covers the search behavior, return list fields, and a clear next step (get-api-detail). No output schema exists, so the return fields are stated. It lacks error-handling or pagination details, but for a moderate-complexity search tool, these are not critical.

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 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description restates the parameter meanings (e.g., keyword, limit) but does not introduce new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, such as syntax or interaction between parameters.

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 searches APIs by keyword, specifying the exact fields being matched (path, summary, description, tags, operationId). It distinguishes itself from get-api-detail by directing users there after finding the exact path, which shows a specific search-and-then-detail workflow.

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 context: use this tool to search by keyword and then follow up with get-api-detail. It doesn't explicitly compare with get-spec-overview or get-openapi-spec, but the purpose is implicit enough that a user can infer when to use it.

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