sw_api_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the typelib block is from THIS installation (so it matches the running version, not a generic doc), the help is versioned 2026 SP04, and the payload includes parameter meaning, governing enum, units, return, remarks tables and version-introduced info. It omits any note on lookup failure behavior or performance, but for a local documentation read the disclosure is solid.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by a compact enumeration of payload contents and one short directive sentence. No filler or repetition. The middle sentence is dense, but every clause maps to a real output component, so nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload — and it does so in detail (typelib order and COM types, per-parameter meaning, governing enum, units, return value, remarks/mark tables, version availability). Inputs are fully covered by the schema. Only minor gaps remain, such as error handling for unknown members.

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 already 100% with both parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating that the interface argument accepts either 'FeatureManager' or 'IFeatureManager', i.e. the 'I' prefix is optional — a normalization rule the schema does not state.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it returns the full documentation sheet for one API method/property, enumerating exactly what that includes (typelib parameter block from this installation plus official 2026 SP04 help). That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related siblings sw_api_search, sw_api_members and sw_api_example, which an agent would also consider for API lookups.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: consult before writing a COM call in sw_execute_script. That tells the agent the moment to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming exclusions or the sibling alternatives (e.g. 'use sw_api_search for free-text discovery instead'), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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