apifox_check_access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('检查当前Token的访问权限') but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits: what permissions are checked, what the response format looks like, whether it makes network calls, if there are rate limits, or what happens with invalid tokens. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and the description provides only basic purpose information, the description is incomplete for effective use. It doesn't explain what 'access permissions' means in this context, what format the results take, or what agents should do with the information. For a permission-checking tool that could be critical for security/access decisions, more context is needed despite the simple parameterless design.

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 (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. According to scoring rules, 0 parameters earns a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters that don't exist.

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 '检查当前Token的访问权限' (Check current token's access permissions) clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('检查' - check) and resource ('访问权限' - access permissions). It distinguishes from siblings like 'apifox_api_info' or 'apifox_project_info' by focusing on token access verification rather than general information retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'apifox_check_project_access' which might be a more specific variant.

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 when this tool should be called (e.g., before making API calls, for debugging), what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'apifox_check_project_access'. Without any usage context, agents must infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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