get_api_path

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, the description adds rich behavior beyond them: the full pre-request rejection list (other methods, unindexed paths, '..', '//', ?/#, URLs, non-string params), index/version acceptance rules for 9.x vs 8.x, 404 on missing paths, and a return shape with sanitization and truncation thresholds.

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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] tag and the primary routing rule before the edge-case mechanics. Dense but nearly every clause earns its place (validation rules, truncation, return keys); the index-version sentence is the heaviest and could be tighter.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description specifies the return object ({path, operation, index, truncated, body}) and the truncation contract, plus the parameters that control paging. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 schema already documents path/params/target. The description still adds value beyond it: the concrete path format rule ('must match a GET operation... each {name} replaced by a value') and the pagination hint ('page with params such as pageSize'). It never mentions the target parameter, so it falls short of a 5.

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 precise verb+resource ('Raw GET of one suite-api path') and explicitly scopes it as a fallback for 'reads no dedicated tool covers.' It distinguishes itself from the many dedicated siblings (get_resource, get_resource_properties, etc.) in the same opening sentence.

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 names both the discovery sibling (search_api_operations, which finds the path) and the usage rule ('Prefer the dedicated tools: their results are shaped and paginated'). The condition selecting this tool over the alternatives is explicit, not inferred.

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