api_describe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the operation is a read, implying non-mutating behavior, but it gives no detail about output shape, error cases, handle semantics, or any side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word adds meaning and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and one under-documented required parameter, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. An agent would still need to infer when to use this tool and what 'handle' should contain.

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 schema provides only a generic 'handle' string with 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify the parameter. It weakly implies that the handle refers to something with generated SDK signatures, but it never explicitly explains what handle values are valid or how to obtain them.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies a concrete resource ('generated SDK method signatures and readable/writable properties'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling api_describe_interface or other SDK-related tools like sdk_read and sdk_search.

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 does not mention api_describe_interface, sdk_read, sdk_search, or api_invoke, nor does it state any conditions or exclusions that would help an agent choose correctly.

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