check_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the types of checks performed and the possible outcomes, but does not state whether the tool has side effects, requires network access, or is read-only. The description is more transparent than a generic 'validates code,' but lacks explicit behavioral details.

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 succinct and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that cover purpose, checks, and output categories. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is easy to parse quickly. The structure is logical: first states the action, then the specifics, then the result types.

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?

The description gives a good overview of the tool's functionality and mentions the output categories, providing some context for expected results. However, it does not describe the exact return format or whether the tool returns a detailed report, a simple status, or includes error messages. Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more detail on the return structure would be beneficial.

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?

All seven parameters have clear, descriptive text in the schema. For example, 'snippet' is noted as an alternative alias for 'code,' and 'project' is described as a workspace root for auto-resolving dependencies. The descriptions add meaningful context beyond the parameter names, making it easy for an agent to understand how to populate them.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: to verify code against indexed OpenAPI schemas and documentation, listing specific checks (invalid endpoints, wrong HTTP methods, missing parameters, etc.) and output categories (verified, warning, mismatch, insufficient_evidence). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_documentation_map or diff_docs, which serve different functions.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It implies usage for verification tasks, but lacks direct guidance such as 'use this when you need to validate generated code' or 'not for retrieving documentation.' An agent can infer the intended use, but explicit instructions would improve clarity.

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