anylogic_api_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it discloses that results are API signatures with parameters and types, which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about ranking, result truncation, whether limit narrows a broader match set, or any auth/rate considerations.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact Args block, with no filler. Only mild redundancy between the parenthetical field list and the per-parameter notes.

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?

Having an output schema means return values need not be explained, and both params are covered. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation: with anylogic_api and anylogic_search adjacent, the definition should clarify which surface answers which question.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates for the query param with a definition plus three concrete example strings that reveal conceptual search rather than exact-name lookup. The limit param is described as the maximum number of results, though the default of 10 from the schema is not restated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Busca clases y métodos en la API Java") plus the shape of what comes back (firmas, parámetros, tipos). It is clearly narrower than anylogic_search, but never names anylogic_api or anylogic_search to draw the contrast explicitly.

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 example queries ("seize capacity", "getEngine", "queue") imply that this is free-text conceptual lookup over the Java API, which helps the agent calibrate a query. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over anylogic_api, anylogic_search or anylogic_examples, which matters against six siblings.

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