apidog_list_api_tree

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 indicates a read-only operation by the word 'List', but gives no details about response structure, pagination, potential size, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 sentence of ten words, directly stating the tool's core function. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no fluff, and is appropriately sized for a tool with a simple purpose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the API tree is, what it includes, and any notable behaviors. It does none of that. For a tool that likely returns a complex hierarchical structure, the one-line description is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including fallback behavior. The description adds only the phrase 'configured or specified project', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional meaning or clarification beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('the Apidog API tree'), with scope ('for the configured or specified project'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_modules or list_api_detail_folders by implying a complete tree structure, though it doesn't explicitly enumerate what the tree contains.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions fallback behavior for projectId/branchId to apidog.json, but that is parameter context, not usage context. Sibling tools such as list_modules or list_api_detail_folders are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer which tool is appropriate for a given task.

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