discover_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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the natural language query approach, it doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (e.g., API listings, metadata, links), whether it performs external searches or accesses a local database, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a discovery tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's core functionality. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential information about searching for APIs based on natural language use cases.

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 discovery/search tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what kind of results to expect, how results are structured, whether there are limitations on search scope, or how this tool relates to other API-related tools in the server. The natural language approach is mentioned, but the overall context for proper tool selection and use is insufficient.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema properties. It mentions natural language queries generally, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond the schema's query description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 purpose: to search for APIs based on a use case described in natural language. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'APIs', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_capabilities' or 'list_categories' that might also list APIs or related resources. The description is specific about the natural language input approach.

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 minimal guidance: it tells the user to describe their use case naturally, but offers no explicit context for when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_capabilities', 'get_api_details', or 'call_api'. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with sibling tools that might serve similar discovery purposes.

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