read_api_definition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one trait beyond the name — that the read also validates the YAML — which usefully signals it can fail on malformed definitions. However it says nothing about whether it mutates anything, what a validation failure returns, or error semantics, leaving significant gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the sibling routing note follows immediately after, so an agent gets both facts in one pass.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place to explain what 'read and validate' returns (parsed definition? validation errors? full text?). It covers the action and the sibling choice but omits return/error behavior and any size or scope caveats for large definitions.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (workspaceRoot, definitionRelativePath) are already documented in the schema, including the MCP_WORKSPACE_ROOT fallback. The description adds no path syntax, format, or interpretation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair (read and validate) against a specific resource (a whole API YAML definition). The word 'whole' plus the explicit pointer to summarize_api_definition makes its scope distinguishable from the summarizing sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Names an alternative (summarize_api_definition) and the condition that selects it ('for triage'), which is genuine routing guidance. It stops short of stating when-not to use this tool or any prerequisites (e.g. path/workspace requirements), so it is clear but not complete.

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