get_api_endpoints

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It uses '获取' (fetch), clearly implying a read-only operation, and '所有' (all) indicates the full scope of results. However, it does not disclose output structure, pagination, potential errors, or any side effects, leaving behavioral detail thin.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description is serviceable: it states what is returned (a list of API endpoints) and identifies the required input. But an output schema and annotations are absent, so details like item shape, error behavior, and dependency on an existing project are missing, leaving the description minimally complete.

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?

The schema already documents the single required parameter projectName as '项目名称', and the description's '指定项目' reinforces its meaning. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description adds no new format, source, or validation context.

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 action (获取/get) and the resource (指定项目的所有API接口/all API endpoints of a specified project). It is implicitly differentiated from siblings: get_api_detail targets a single endpoint, search_apis searches, and list_swagger_projects lists projects, while this tool lists all endpoints for one project.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as search_apis or get_api_detail, and no mention of prerequisites like needing the project to already be managed by a swagger project. The only context is the tool name and sibling names, which are not referenced in the description.

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