summarize_api_definition

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool summarizes without returning the full definition, and that fields projects endpoint entries, but it omits permission needs, error behavior, workspace requirements, and an explicit read-only characterization.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The purpose comes first, followed immediately by mode-selection guidance, so the most important information is 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?

For a five-parameter tool with no annotations, only 20% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. It covers the purpose and mode usage well but leaves required-path semantics, return shape details, and error behavior unexplained.

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 only 20%. The description adds meaning for detailLevel (names_only vs full) and fields projection, but it does not explain the required definitionRelativePath, requestId, or workspaceRoot, leaving three of five parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Summarize') and resource ('canonical API YAML'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling read_api_definition by noting it avoids returning the full definition. An agent can tell what this tool does and how it differs from reading the full definition.

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?

Explicitly says to use names_only for triage and full only when needed, and notes that fields can trim endpoint entries. However, 'when needed' is vague and it does not name a sibling alternative such as read_api_definition or explain when not to use this tool.

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