springboot_search_openapi

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, yet the description still adds real value: default inlining of direct and second-order same-document refs, no remote ref resolution, no full-document dump, no business execution. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields. It stops short of describing pagination/cursor behavior, which the 8-param schema implies.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the return behavior before usage and exclusions, with no filler. The semicolon-chained clauses are efficient, though packing return semantics, usage guidance and three exclusions into one sentence slightly hurts scannability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needs no explanation and the description's account of ref inlining is appropriate. But for an 8-parameter tool with a oneOf/allOf selector constraint and only 13% schema coverage, omitting how the selectors combine and how cursor/maxResults paginate leaves a real gap for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 13% (only pathPattern is documented), so the description must compensate and largely does not. It obliquely conveys maxRefDepth's default of 2 via '二阶同文档引用' and gestures at '精确选择器', but says nothing about schemaName vs pathPattern vs operationId exclusivity, cursor, maxResults, or targetId, leaving the most consequential parameters unexplained.

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 concrete verb/resource pair ('返回匹配操作或 Schema') and bounds the scope by stating it does not return the whole document or resolve remote refs. It does not need to differentiate from siblings, which are diagnostics/bean/config tools with no overlapping purpose. The only weakness is that 'matching' against what corpus (the OpenAPI spec) is inferred from the name/title rather than stated.

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?

'确认接口契约时使用精确选择器调用' gives a clear usage context and a call-style directive (use precise selectors). However, no alternatives are named and the mutual exclusivity between the three selector styles (schemaName vs pathPattern/operationId) that actually determines correct invocation is never explained.

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