execute_api

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the critical safety trait that only read-only APIs are allowed by default and that write operations require an explicit environment variable. It also states the return format (JSON) and documents pagination/field-selection behavior, which goes beyond the sparse schema. It could add error behavior or mutation warnings, but the key behavioral constraints are 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 well-structured with a short purpose, a critical safety note, clearly labeled Args, Returns, and Example sections. Every part adds value: the read-only guard is front-loaded, the conditions format is essential, and the example demonstrates realistic usage. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 generic executor with an open-ended parameters object and no annotations, the description provides the essential information: how to name an API, how to format query conditions, pagination/field controls, and the default write restriction. It is slightly incomplete regarding non-query API parameter conventions and possible error behaviors, but the example and Query API details make it sufficiently complete for common use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining api_name with an example and by detailing the parameters dict, including the conditions array format, default limit, offset, and fields selection. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema. It does not document parameter formats for write APIs, but the generic nature of the tool makes exhaustive documentation impractical.

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 identifies the action ('执行 ZStack API' / execute ZStack API) and the target resource (ZStack API), with a concrete example (QueryVmInstance). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_api or describe_api, so it misses the top tier for sibling differentiation, but the intended purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear operational guidance: read-only APIs are allowed by default, and write APIs require setting ZSTACK_ALLOW_ALL_API=true. It also explains Query API conditions and pagination defaults, which helps an agent use the tool correctly. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be used instead of sibling tools, nor when to avoid it, leaving usage context mostly implied.

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