wop_api_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral burden, and it does disclose suffix matching, optional POST/GET prefixes, direct-download behavior for URLs, and the ambiguous-match candidate-list outcome. It omits auth/rate-limit context, but the matching semantics are well covered.

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 purpose, then a numbered list for the input forms, then Args/Returns. The docstring-style Args/Returns block is somewhat redundant given the schema and output schema, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description still characterizes the markdown content. Combined with the matching-failure guidance, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only auth and error-code behavior are unaddressed.

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 0% and there is one parameter, so the description must define it — and it does, enumerating three accepted value forms and how prefix/suffix matching resolves. This goes well beyond the empty schema entry.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieve the full definition of a named WOP API interface. It also delineates scope against siblings (wop_overview, wop_link_detail) by being explicitly about a single interface's detail definition.

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?

Gives three ranked input forms with concrete examples and priority ordering, plus the recovery action when multiple interfaces match. It lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' routing to siblings, but the form guidance is unusually actionable.

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