apidog_get_http_api

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral context such as authentication requirements, response format, or error handling. It only states the action without elaborating on side effects or preconditions.

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 concise sentence that directly states the operation, with no unnecessary words.

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?

As a simple fetch tool, the description provides the basic purpose, but lacks context on return values, optional parameters' fallback behavior, or when to prefer this tool over sibling listing tools. The absence of an output schema places more burden on the description, which it only partially meets.

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 description does not elaborate on the parameters beyond the schema. The schema describes projectId and branchId with fallback notes, but apiDetailId lacks a description in the schema and the description does not clarify it further, providing minimal added value.

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 'Get' with a clear resource 'HTTP API detail' and specifies lookup by ID, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like listing APIs or creating modules.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apidog_list_api_tree or apidog_get_openapi; usage is only implied by the need to fetch a specific API detail by ID.

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