get_api_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 what the tool returns ('RETURNERAR: API-metadata och information'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or other operational traits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 structured with sections for purpose, use cases, and return value, but it's somewhat verbose in Swedish and could be more streamlined. Sentences like 'Hämta information om Skolverkets Läroplan API' are clear, but the use case list is bulleted without additional explanation, making it efficient but not optimally concise.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and use cases but lacks behavioral details like response format or error conditions. For a basic info-fetching tool, it meets minimum viability but could be more comprehensive.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is acceptable here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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: 'Hämta information om Skolverkets Läroplan API' (Get information about the Swedish National Agency for Education's Curriculum API). It specifies the verb ('Hämta') and resource ('API'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_curriculum_details' or 'get_curriculum_versions', which might also involve API-related data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 includes an 'ANVÄNDNINGSFALL' (Use cases) section listing scenarios such as checking API version, contact information, and technical documentation, which implies when to use this tool. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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