apifox_schema_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. It mentions '获取' (get), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured or unstructured data, or any error conditions. The description is minimal and fails to provide essential behavioral traits beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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: '获取数据模型管理功能的限制说明'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity without losing conciseness. Overall, it's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool.

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 input schema (0 parameters) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., format, structure of restriction info), behavioral aspects like authentication needs, and how it fits among siblings. For a tool that presumably provides important limitation data, the description should offer more context to guide effective use, especially without annotations to fill gaps.

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, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps. It appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, aligning with the input schema. A baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't mislead about parameters and matches the schema's indication of none.

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 '获取数据模型管理功能的限制说明' (Get restrictions/limitations for data model management functionality) states a purpose but is somewhat vague. It specifies a verb ('获取' - get) and a resource ('限制说明' - restriction explanations), but doesn't clarify what type of restrictions (rate limits, feature limitations, usage quotas) or what '数据模型管理功能' (data model management functionality) precisely entails. It distinguishes from some siblings (e.g., apifox_api_info, apifox_project_info) by focusing on restrictions rather than general info, but the scope remains ambiguous.

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 prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given siblings like apifox_check_access or apifox_import_export_info, there's no indication of when to choose this tool over others for related queries about limitations or access. The lack of usage context leaves the agent guessing about its application.

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