validate_api_structure

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

The description only states 'Validate API follows REST best practices' with no information about side effects, output format, whether it modifies files, or required permissions. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose these behavioral aspects.

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 at seven words, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no fluff. While it is terse, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though slightly under-specified in content.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the tool returns or how results are presented. It does not. The optional path parameter and validation behavior are minimally described, leaving an agent without sufficient context to invoke the tool 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?

The schema fully describes the single 'path' parameter as 'Path to API files', so the description adds no additional semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: validating an API against REST best practices. It uses a specific verb ('Validate') and identifies the resource ('API'), which is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_api, which could overlap in scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_api or review_security. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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