vcf_describe_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds context by explaining what the tool returns (path/query parameters, request body schema with required fields, response schemas) and how depth/max_properties affect the output. It also warns that 'VCF request bodies are large and unforgiving', which is useful behavioral context. No contradiction with 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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening, a usage note, and a compact Args section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content. The formatting with bullet-like Args makes scanning easy.

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 no output schema, the description provides adequate information about return values (schemas, required fields, response schemas). It explains depth and max_properties, which are the main customization knobs. The missing 'target' parameter is a notable omission, but the tool is otherwise well-covered for its complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains depth and max_properties well and mentions operation_id, method, and path as identification mechanisms. However, the 'target' parameter is completely absent from the description, leaving its meaning unclear. This gap prevents a higher score.

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 function: 'Show the full signature of one API operation before calling it.' It identifies the specific resource (one API operation) and the verb 'Show', distinguishing it from siblings like vcf_call (which actually invokes) and vcf_search_api (which finds operations).

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Always do this before a POST/PATCH/PUT' and 'Identify the operation either by operation_id (from vcf_search_api) or by method plus path.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and how to specify the operation, while implying it is a pre-call step.

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