Search Run:AI API Spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavior such as deprecated endpoints being hidden by default and alternative APIs being suggested. However, it does not explain search mechanics, result format, or potential edge cases (e.g., ambiguous queries or result limits), leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then follows a well-organized, pipe-delimited list of API categories. While long, the enumeration is directly relevant for a tool that searches a broad API surface, and it is structured for readability. It is not excessively verbose for its purpose.

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 the complexity of Run:AI's API landscape and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a thorough overview of what the tool can find, including many categories and the deprecated-endpoint behavior. It does not specify return formatting or detailed search options, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities and likely output.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the scope of what can be queried via the 'query' parameter and by explicitly relating the 'include_deprecated' parameter to the default behavior of hiding deprecated endpoints and suggesting alternatives. This goes beyond the simple schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('검색하여 찾습니다') and resource ('OpenAPI 스펙'), and clearly states it finds API endpoints, HTTP methods, and request schemas for a given task. It also distinguishes itself from siblings that execute API calls or resolve names by emphasizing it is a search/spec-lookup tool.

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 provides clear context: it is used to locate the necessary API information before making calls, and it outlines the full scope of what can be searched. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intent is clear and there are no misleading exclusions.

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