Call Run:AI API

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: 'Bearer 토큰 인증은 자동' (Bearer token authentication is automatic) and 'DELETE 등 위험 작업은 confirm_destructive: true 필요' (dangerous operations like DELETE require confirm_destructive: true). However, it does not disclose response format, error handling, or other side effects, which are relevant for a generic API caller.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by prerequisite and safety conditions. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous content.

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 generic API wrapper, the description is largely complete: it directs users to look up the endpoint spec first, explains authentication, and covers destructive safeguards. The only notable omission is explicit mention of the response format, but that is endpoint-dependent and accessible via search_runai_api_spec, so the description adequately scopes the tool's behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no substantial parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it merely reiterates the confirm_destructive requirement for DELETE operations, which is already documented 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 clearly states 'Run:AI REST API를 호출합니다' (Calls the Run:AI REST API), specifying the verb and resource. It also differentiates from siblings by instructing to check the endpoint with search_runai_api_spec first, positioning this tool as the actual API caller.

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?

Provides clear usage guidance: 'search_runai_api_spec으로 엔드포인트를 먼저 확인하세요' (check the endpoint first with search_runai_api_spec). It also includes relevant conditions like automatic Bearer token authentication and the need for confirm_destructive for DELETE operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives like execute_runai_cli.

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