apifox_api_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '获取' (get) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter informational tool and front-loads the key action ('获取') and target ('使用说明和限制信息'). Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs or return format. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what '使用说明和限制信息' entails, but it meets the basic threshold for such a simple tool.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately doesn't mention parameters. A baseline of 4 is justified since no parameter information is required beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose as '获取Apifox开放API的使用说明和限制信息' (Get usage instructions and limitation information for Apifox Open API). It uses specific verbs ('获取' - get) and resources ('使用说明和限制信息' - usage instructions and limitation information), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apifox_import_export_info' or 'apifox_schema_info' which might also provide informational content.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context for usage, prerequisites, or exclusions. With multiple sibling tools that appear informational (e.g., 'apifox_project_info', 'apifox_schema_info'), the lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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