lenis_get_api

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses the tool returns detailed API reference data. It does not mention whether it's read-only, has side effects, or any auth/rate limits, but as a retrieval tool the behavioral context is adequate.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words. Efficient and to the point.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return content. Lacks mention of error cases or prerequisites, but still fairly complete for its 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a description of the 'name' parameter that matches the description. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get', resource 'detailed API reference for a specific Lenis API', and lists contents (props, options, usage examples, tips). It differentiates from siblings like lenis_list_apis (lists APIs) and lenis_get_pattern (gets a pattern).

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 when to use (when needing details on a specific API) but gives no explicit guidance on when not to use or how it contrasts with alternatives like lenis_search_docs or lenis_get_pattern.

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