api_get

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'GET request,' offering little beyond the method itself; it does not disclose response handling, header merging, URL resolution behavior, authentication needs, or error behavior. The schema adds some detail, but the description itself is behaviorally thin.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. For a tool with six parameters and no annotation context, this level of brevity forces the agent to rely entirely on the schema and sibling names.

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 lack of annotations, absence of an output schema, and the presence of six parameters, the description is not complete enough. It omits return behavior, auth expectations, and when it should be selected over siblings, leaving material gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 the parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the burden.

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 the HTTP verb (GET) and the resource (an API endpoint), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like api_post and api_delete. It is minimal, however, and does not mention what is returned or how the response is handled.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as api_post, swagger_fetch, or config_status. The GET verb implicitly suggests read operations, but no explicit context or exclusion is provided.

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