get-api-doc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It communicates that the tool returns detailed documentation including introduction, limitations, scenarios, and example code, making the read-only nature and expected output clear. Minor gaps around not-found or error behavior remain.

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 concise and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a short bulleted list of scenarios. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers both tool selection and expected return content. It could be more complete by hinting that list-api can be used first if the exact API name is unknown, and by explaining failure behavior, but these are minor omissions.

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?

The schema already describes the single parameter apiName with concrete examples like IService, QueryWrapper, and @Table. The description only adds 'by name', which does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter documentation. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action and resource: fetch detailed documentation for a named Mybatis-Flex API/feature via its name. It is distinguishable from siblings like list-api, get-changelog, and get-mybatis-flex-info, which serve different purposes.

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 applicable scenarios are explicitly listed: when the user asks how to use a specific API/function, or needs its introduction, usage restrictions, scenarios, and examples. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it misses the top score.

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