api-client

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it adds nothing about the tool's behavior—such as whether it performs read/write operations, requires authentication, has side effects, or handles errors. This leaves critical behavioral traits completely undocumented.

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?

While the description is brief, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The single sentence 'ApiClient tool description' fails to convey meaningful information, making it inefficient rather than well-structured. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one adds negligible 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?

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a description that provides almost no information, the description is severely incomplete. It does not compensate for the missing structured data, leaving the agent without essential context for a tool with one parameter and unknown behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'message' documented as 'Message to process'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this schema information. According to the rules, when coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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 'ApiClient tool description' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with minimal modification. It provides no specific verb or resource information, nor does it differentiate this tool from its siblings (data-processor, example_tool, file-handler, my-tool). This fails to communicate what the tool actually does.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or any alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent with no information to make an informed selection among available tools.

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