timps_api_contract_auditor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses inputs and outputs ('Returns a semver recommendation and a migration guide') and implies a read-only diff operation, but it does not state side effects, limitations, or behavior on invalid or mismatched specs. Adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by valuable output details. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity analysis tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. The only minor gap is not clarifying handling of format mismatches or invalid specs, but the schema covers required inputs and the default format.

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 old_spec, new_spec, and format. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Diff') and resource ('two API specs'), identifies supported formats (OpenAPI/AsyncAPI), and names concrete outputs (breaking changes, deprecations, safe additions, semver recommendation, migration guide). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like api_security_tester or contract_reviewer.

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 makes the usage context clear: comparing two API specs and assessing contract compatibility. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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