SwaggerMcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool fetches documentation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, how it handles errors, if it caches results, or what format the output is in. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from behavior.

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 tool's complexity (fetching external documentation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the results, or any prerequisites like network access, making it inadequate for an agent to use confidently.

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 the schema already documents the 'url' parameter fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of common Swagger paths or clarification on the fallback behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Swagger/OpenAPI documentation'), and explains what it does ('to discover available API endpoints'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_endpoints' or 'get_endpoint_details', but the focus on documentation discovery is reasonably distinct.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_endpoints' and 'get_endpoint_details' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of when this tool is preferred or what its specific use case is compared to them.

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