get_api_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does functionally ('get detailed information') without any behavioral context about permissions needed, rate limits, what format the details come in, whether this is a read-only operation, or any error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately concise with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. The structure is front-loaded with the main functionality first. While efficient, the Args section could be slightly more detailed given the 0% schema coverage, but overall it's well-structured without 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and only 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool does and the parameter semantics. However, for a tool with no annotations and multiple sibling tools that seem related, the description should do more to differentiate this tool's specific role and provide behavioral context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description provides crucial semantic information about the 'api_name' parameter, explaining it accepts 'API名またはファイル名（拡張子なし）' - 'API name or filename (without extension)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could be more specific about what constitutes valid API names versus filenames.

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 states the purpose ('特定のAPIの詳細情報を取得します' - 'Get detailed information for a specific API') which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_sample_endpoints' or 'search_api_docs' - all of which seem to retrieve API-related information. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_saved_apis', 'search_api_docs', and 'get_sample_endpoints', there's no indication of when this specific 'get_api_details' tool is appropriate versus those other information-retrieval tools. The description is purely functional without contextual guidance.

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