获取接口详情

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that omitting method returns all methods for the path, and lists the returned content (参数/请求体/响应/示例). However, it doesn't mention errors or auth prerequisites, though the key behavioral nuance of the optional method is 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?

The description is concise and structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by three clear bullets. Every sentence adds value, the main purpose is front-loaded, and there is no 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?

For a tool with 2 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core functionality, workflow with search_api, and optional method behavior. It could elaborate on response structure beyond listing content types, but it is sufficiently complete for a single-interface retrieval 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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description restates the optionality of method and the role of path, but adds little beyond schema. The note about using with search_api is more workflow than parameter semantics.

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 retrieves complete documentation for a single API endpoint ('获取单个接口的完整文档'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as the precise follow-up to search_api and emphasizing '单个' (single), contrasting with batch_get_apis.

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?

A dedicated '使用指引' section gives explicit when-to-use instructions: direct use when path is known, use after search_api for precise details, and explains the optional method behavior. This clearly delineates the workflow and alternative.

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