Get API Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the return format: a brief summary and a path to info.json. It also specifies what the file contains (title, version, servers, auth schemes, etc.), which is not available from the schema or annotations.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second summarizes return value, third gives an actionable follow-up instruction. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff or repetition.

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 simple metadata tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description completely explains what to expect: a brief summary, a path to info.json, and what the file contains. The instruction to use the Read tool covers how to get full details, making the workflow clear. No gaps are apparent.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining the output, but no parameter semantics are needed. Since there is no schema coverage issue, a 4 is appropriate.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Get general metadata about the loaded API specification.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('general metadata about the loaded API specification'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_endpoint or get_schema by focusing on overall metadata rather than specific parts.

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 implies usage: use this tool to get a summary and a path, then follow up with the Read tool. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like swagger_get_schema or swagger_list_tags, nor does it mention when not to use it. The guidance is useful but only implicitly conveys the intended workflow.

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