clo_api_describe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns live docstring/overloads/class fields and reflects the running version, implying a read-only query, but it doesn't explicitly state side-effect safety, error conditions, or any access requirements.

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?

One dense sentence that packs in the purpose, the kinds of information returned, and a version context note, all with representative examples. No wasted 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?

For a simple query tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, input format, and version context. Minor gaps (explicit error behavior, return format breakdown) are acceptable given the tool's low complexity.

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 single parameter 'name' is clarified through concrete examples ('pattern_api.GetPatternCount or ApiTypes.ImportExportOption'), which establish the expected format of a qualified name. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema (type: string, no description).

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 specifies a clear verb ('describe') and resource (qualified API names), with concrete examples like 'pattern_api.GetPatternCount'. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools such as clo_api_doc or clo_api_search, which likely have overlapping documentation purposes.

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 intended use is implied through examples (querying a qualified name for its docs), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clo_api_search or clo_api_doc. The agent must infer the appropriate context.

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