reactflow_get_api

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 discloses the return contents (props, usage, examples, tips) but omits any behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or preconditions. For a simple read operation, it is minimally 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?

Two sentences, 28 words. First sentence states purpose and target. Second lists what it includes. No fluff or repetition; every word earns its place.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It tells what the tool returns (props, usage, examples, tips). Could optionally mention output format, but this does not significantly impair usability.

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% (one required param 'name' with example values). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it only restates the types of API elements. Baseline score of 3 applies since structure already documents the parameter.

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 action ('Get detailed API reference'), specifies the target ('specific React Flow component, hook, utility, or type'), and lists contents ('props, usage, examples, and tips'). This distinguishes it from siblings like reactflow_list_apis (listing) and reactflow_search_docs (searching).

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 usage via the purpose but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings (e.g., 'use this for deep reference, use search for broad lookups'). It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context.

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