get_api_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns formatted reference information and that the api parameter defaults to 'all.' However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, does not modify state, or discuss rate limits or authentication. For a read-only reference tool, this is minimally adequate but could be improved.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Every part is informative and earns its place, with no extraneous content.

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 (1 optional parameter, no output schema missing), the description covers all needed aspects: parameter options and defaults, return content description, and usage examples. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully explains the api parameter: its default value and each enum option (seedream, nano_banana, all) with brief explanations. This compensates completely for the schema gap, adding significant meaning beyond the schema structure.

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: 'Get information about supported parameters and capabilities.' It specifies the resource (API info) and action (get). The tool is distinct from siblings like generate_image or edit_image, which focus on image manipulation, making its role unambiguous.

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 implies usage for reference and exploration, e.g., 'provides reference information about what each API supports.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or directly compare with siblings, but the context and examples (e.g., 'Get all API info') make the use case clear. A slight improvement would be to mention it is read-only and safe to call at any time.

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