apidog_list_api_responses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but it only states 'List...' without mentioning whether authentication is required, whether the operation is read-only, or whether pagination or filtering exists. This absence of behavioral context leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and data volume.

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 brief sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded. It earns its place by stating the core function, but could easily include additional context (e.g., return format, default branch behavior) without becoming verbose.

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 an output schema and minimal annotations, the description should explain what the list contains, any defaults, and return structure. It does none of this, making the tool functionally underspecified for an agent attempting to use it correctly, despite the schema's helpful parameter documentation.

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 covers 100% of the parameters, with descriptions for branchId and projectId explaining fallback behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 'List reusable API response components' clearly states a specific action (list) and a specific resource (reusable API response components). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'apidog_list_api_tree' and 'apidog_list_modules' by naming the resource type, though it doesn't clarify what constitutes 'reusable API response components' in Apidog's context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of other list tools, nor are any prerequisites mentioned. The optional branchId/projectId fallback is only implied by the schema descriptions, but the tool description itself gives no context about how these parameters affect usage.

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