x_api_get_open_api_spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses read-only status, safety warnings about sensitive data, failure conditions including rate limits and auth failures, and explains environment-selection behavior. This exceeds typical descriptions.

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 well-structured with labeled sections, but it contains redundancy such as 'Get OpenAPI Spec..' appearing twice and 'Risk: read-only' repeated in the safety warning. Some sections are useful but the wording could be tightened without losing information.

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?

Despite weak purpose clarity, the description provides a response shape, an example invocation, failure conditions, environment-selection behavior, and recommended companion tools. This gives an agent enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly, though the missing parameter details slightly reduce completeness.

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 partially compensates by explaining scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey in the environment-selection section. However, it omits authorizationKey and preferredAuthType, and the line 'Parameter formats and constraints: no endpoint-specific parameters' is confusing, leaving some parameters under-documented.

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 begins with 'Get OpenAPI Spec..' which essentially restates the tool name without elaborating on what the OpenAPI spec contains or how it relates to the X API. It lacks a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from siblings; the 'Do not use when' section points to alternatives but the core purpose remains underspecified.

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?

There is an explicit 'Do not use when' clause naming x_schema_discovery and x_query_suggestion as better fits for exploration, plus a 'Recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools' list. The 'Use when' section is tautological ('Get OpenAPI Spec..'), but the exclusion and alternatives provide clear usage guidance, so this is above baseline.

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