addPet
Add a new pet to the store. - Add a new pet to the store.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addPetBody | Yes | ||
| x-hapi-auth-state | No |
Add a new pet to the store. - Add a new pet to the store.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addPetBody | Yes | ||
| x-hapi-auth-state | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description discloses no behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, return values, or error conditions. It merely restates the tool's purpose, leaving the agent uninformed about the consequences of calling it.
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 redundant, repeating the same sentence twice with a separator. While short, the duplication wastes space and provides no additional insight, making it poorly structured.
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 tool has nested objects and required fields, yet the description provides none of the necessary context about the payload structure, required elements, or accepted values. With no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 description mentions no parameters, and the schema has 0% description coverage. Required fields like name and photoUrls, along with nested objects and the status enum, are entirely unexplained, forcing the agent to guess their format and constraints.
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 states a clear action ('Add a new pet to the store') with a specific resource (pet), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like updatePet or deletePet. However, it lacks scope details and the duplicated sentence adds no extra meaning.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'new' implies creation, but there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to other pet-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, but updatePet and updatePetWithForm overlap in purpose (both update a pet), creating minor ambiguity. Other pairs like createUser and createUsersWithListInput are clearly different.
The naming mixes verbs (addPet vs createUser, findPetsByStatus vs getPetById) and styles, but each resource area follows a somewhat predictable pattern (get* for reads, update* for updates, delete* for deletes). Not chaotic, but inconsistent.
19 tools is on the heavier side but reasonable for a petstore server covering pets, orders, and users. Each tool serves a distinct need, and the count reflects the multi-domain scope.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for pets, orders, and users, including create, read, update, delete, and search operations. Additional operations like login, logout, and inventory are present. No obvious gaps for the expected domain.