apidog_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds some transparency by noting the response includes 'operation object and referenced schemas', which gives insight into output behavior. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, error conditions, or other side effects. It provides moderate context but not comprehensive.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and the key inclusions. It is front-loaded, free of fluff, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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?

Considering the simplicity of the tool, four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely adequate. It explains the primary function and what is included in the result. It lacks explicit guidance on distinguishing from related tools, but the schema covers parameter details. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for this straightforward read operation.

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 has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, defining path, method, module, and project. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 because the schema handles the explanatory burden effectively.

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 function: 'Get full details of a single endpoint including operation object and referenced schemas'. It uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('single endpoint'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like apidog_list (which lists endpoints) and apidog_get_schema (which retrieves a specific schema). This is a precise and non-tautological purpose.

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 the use case: when you need full details of a single endpoint. It clearly communicates the context, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use apidog_list for listing endpoints' or 'use apidog_get_schema for schema retrieval'. Thus it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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