api_lookup

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses wildcard support and the kind of data returned (signature, params, DLL, category). It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only lookup this is sufficient. Missing details like error handling or result limits, but overall transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description covers return values (signature, params, DLL, category) and wildcard support. For a simple lookup tool with two parameters, this is mostly complete. It could mention error cases or result size limits, but for the context it is adequate.

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 value by explaining that api_name supports wildcards (e.g., 'Create*'), which is not evident from the schema alone. This enhances semantic understanding beyond the schema description.

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 the tool looks up Windows API definitions (signature, params, DLL, category) from a knowledge base. The verb 'look up' is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like api_analyze_imports or api_detect_patterns.

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 description implies usage for retrieving API details but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., for analyzing imports vs. detecting patterns). No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided.

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