webdev_openapi_viewer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adequately implies a read-only viewing/rendering operation, but does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or behavior beyond the core action.

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 short but includes the extraneous 'Menu ID: openapi_viewer' which adds no value. The core info is present but not optimally front-loaded.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain input parameter formats and output behavior. It does not specify how to provide the specification (e.g., as string or URL) or what the interactive rendering returns, making it incomplete.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning to the two required parameters ('specification', 'format'). It fails to explain what these parameters expect (e.g., content type, location), leaving the agent without necessary 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 it is an OpenAPI/Swagger viewer and renderer with interactive interface, specifying supported versions. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are not OpenAPI-specific.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions using describe_tool for more info, but lacks when/when-not criteria or exclusion instructions.

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