apisix_get_upstream

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the context that it returns the '完整配置' (complete configuration), which is useful beyond what annotations state. No additional behavioral details like error handling or permissions are provided, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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, concise sentence in Chinese that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no redundant information or filler.

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?

This is a simple read tool with one parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema. The description adequately states the tool's purpose and that it returns the full config. A minor gap is the lack of mention about behavior when the ID does not exist, but overall the description is sufficient for a low-complexity 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% with the 'id' parameter described as '上游 ID'. The tool description does not add any further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema carries the full parameter documentation.

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 queries a single upstream's complete configuration, using the verb '查询' and resource '单个上游'. It distinguishes from list_upstreams by specifying '单个' (single), but does not explicitly differentiate from other get_* siblings in the same family.

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?

Usage is implied: the description says it queries a single upstream, so use this when you need one upstream's config instead of listing all. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like list_upstreams or get_service, nor provide any exclusion criteria.

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