获取 Eolink 接口详情

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the return format (Markdown documentation) and the comprehensive set of returned details, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise yet comprehensive. It uses a bullet-like structure to list return components and clearly separates parameter instructions. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (Markdown with parameter details). It covers prerequisites, required parameters, and output format, making the tool fully understandable.

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%, but the description adds meaningful guidance: it specifies that api_id comes from eolink_search_apis and project_id from eolink_list_projects, enhancing understanding of parameter dependencies.

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 specifies the exact resource ('单个 HTTP 接口的完整定义') and lists all included components (基础信息、请求头、query 参数等), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like eolink_search_apis which only return a list.

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 explains that project_id and api_id are required, and tells how to obtain them (via eolink_list_projects and eolink_search_apis). It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use this tool, but the prerequisites are clear.

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