cvcue_api_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior by stating that component $refs are inlined up to ref_depth, which explains why the response may be large. However, it doesn't say whether the lookup is read-only, whether it can fail for unknown paths or methods, or how large expanded schemas can become.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the ref_depth caveat appended. There is no wasted wording, though the parenthetical workflow tag could be folded more naturally.

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 simple 3-parameter read lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description mostly suffices: it names what is returned and explains the one non-obvious parameter's effect. The main gap is that it doesn't describe the response envelope or the error behavior for unknown paths or methods.

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 some meaning by explaining that ref_depth controls $ref inlining depth, but it adds nothing about how path and method interact, for example whether a missing method defaults to GET, and it adds no guidance on choosing a ref_depth value.

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 names a specific verb and resource: get parameters, request body and response schema for one endpoint, with the scope narrowed to a single endpoint. It distinguishes itself from the api_search and api_execute siblings by positioning itself as 'step 3 of API discovery', though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'step 3 of API discovery' implies where the tool fits: after searching for endpoints and before executing a call. However, it never states the prerequisite step explicitly, gives no when-not guidance, and doesn't point to api_search for finding the path or to api_execute as the follow-up.

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