openapi_stub

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key behavior: the tool is offline-only, does not fetch a URL, and is not mux_mount. This provides meaningful transparency beyond the tool name, though it could mention whether it has side effects or validates input, but for a simple scaffold tool this is largely sufficient.

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 four short sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying scope statements ('Offline scaffold only,' 'Does not fetch a spec URL,' 'Not mux_mount') each earn their place by preventing common mistakes.

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 very simple tool with one required parameter, an output schema, and no nested objects. The description fully covers the operational context: what it does, what it does not do, and its relationship to mux_mount. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by framing title as a 'caller-supplied OpenAPI title' and clarifying that the generated server is an offline scaffold based on that title, rather than something fetched or mounted. This enriches the schema's 'Display title for the generated stub server.'

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 specific action and resource: 'Return a stub MCP server derived from a caller-supplied OpenAPI title.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by saying 'Not mux_mount.' This is far beyond a tautology and clearly separates it from the other tools.

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 explicitly states its scope: 'Offline scaffold only. Does not fetch a spec URL. Not mux_mount.' This tells the agent when to use it (offline scaffolding) and when not to use it (for mounting an actual server or fetching a spec). It directly names the sibling alternative mux_mount.

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