list_apis

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 clearly indicates a read-only listing behavior and specifies the returned data. However, it does not discuss potential limitations (e.g., whether the list is sorted, if it reflects live changes, or any access restrictions), which prevents a higher score.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core function and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to call it. It also provides a prioritization heuristic ('Call this first'), making it comprehensive for the given 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to explain. As per the baseline for 0 params, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Score 4 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Lists all APIs loaded from the specs folder.' It clearly states the scope and return fields (names, titles, base URLs, environments). Though it does not explicitly name sibling tools, the focus on APIs distinguishes it from list_endpoints and get_endpoint_schema.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this when you need to know what APIs are loaded or what environments a specific API supports' and 'Call this first when the user references an API you haven't seen yet.' It lacks mention of alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear and actionable.

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