按 URL 精确查找 Eolink 接口

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it pulls all project APIs server-side and matches, which is useful context. No contradictions, and no missing critical behavior.

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 well-structured with purpose first, then behavior, then parameters. It is concise but includes necessary examples. Slightly verbose in parameter list but still efficient.

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 3 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description explains return fields (api_id, api_name, etc.) and suggests next steps. Complete for its complexity and context signals.

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 100% (all three parameters described in input schema). The description also provides examples and extra context (e.g., 'user/user/list' with optional leading slash). Baseline score is appropriate as schema already does the heavy lifting.

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: find APIs by exact path (api_path). It distinguishes itself from eolink_search_apis, which has fuzzy search noise, providing a specific verb+resource combination.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool: for exact path matching to avoid fuzzy noise. It also mentions an alternative: use eolink_get_api_detail for full definitions after obtaining api_id.

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