anylogic_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that it returns the exact API record, but does not disclose what happens for unknown or ambiguous symbols, or that max_chars may truncate the response.

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 front-loaded and efficient: one sentence states the operation, followed by a compact args section that explains the accepted symbol formats. There is no filler.

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 output schema covers return values, and the symbol parameter is well explained. However, the lack of annotations, undocumented max_chars behavior, and absence of error/ambiguity handling leave meaningful gaps for an agent to infer.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does a good job explaining accepted symbol formats (simple, qualified, member), but it entirely omits the optional max_chars parameter and its truncation behavior.

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 and resource: it returns the exact record for a Java API class, method, or field. This is clear enough to distinguish the operation from generic library browsing, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling anylogic_api_search.

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?

Usage is implied by the requirement to supply a symbol name, and the examples make clear this is for known API symbols. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus anylogic_api_search or anylogic_search, nor are exclusions or alternatives stated.

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