api_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key runtime behavior: automatic token header attachment, unwrapping of the {code,msg,result} envelope, path placeholder substitution via params, and raw=true to skip unwrapping. It does not cover error handling or side-effect expectations for mutating endpoints, but it adds substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 plus a compact example block convey purpose, token behavior, envelope unwrapping, path placeholders, and a README pointer. Every sentence earns its place, and the 'escape hatch / covers all endpoints' purpose is front-loaded.

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 that this is a generic passthrough tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation mechanics: token header, envelope unwrapping, path placeholders, raw mode, and where to find valid paths. It stops short of describing business-error responses or when a dedicated sibling should be preferred, but those gaps are secondary for a tool of this nature.

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 baseline applies. The description's placeholder/params relationship and raw behavior are largely already encoded in the schema, so the examples are illustrative rather than semantically necessary. It reinforces meaning but does not significantly compensate for anything missing in the schema.

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 opens by defining the tool as a generic API request 'escape hatch' covering all endpoints, which clearly identifies the action (request) and the broad resource (all APIs). The '逃生通道' framing also distinguishes it from the many dedicated sibling tools, so an agent can recognize it as the universal fallback without inspecting schemas.

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 'escape hatch' wording implies use when a dedicated sibling does not cover a desired endpoint, and the examples show raw endpoint invocation. However, it never explicitly says 'prefer dedicated tools when available' or gives conditions for choosing this generic tool over specific siblings, so the usage guidance is implied rather than fully stated.

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