timps_api_design_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output ('Returns the spec + a design rationale document'), the behavioral scope ('Enforces REST/GraphQL best practices, versioning strategy, and consistent naming'), and the non-code-generating nature implied by 'BEFORE code generation starts.' This is solid but not exhaustive.

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?

Three focused sentences: what it generates, what it enforces, and what it returns. Every sentence adds value and the main purpose is front-loaded. 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the return value and the design workflow. It covers the core behavior and input intent, though it could mention side effects or file-writing behavior for full completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'description' is a natural-language input but does not add meaningful detail about 'style', 'version', or 'auth_scheme' beyond what the schema already documents.

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 a specific action ('generates a complete OpenAPI 3.1 spec (YAML)') on a specific resource from natural-language input. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like timps_api_contract_auditor or timps_api_security_tester by focusing on design before code generation.

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 phrase 'BEFORE code generation starts' provides clear timing context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the design-focused purpose is evident compared to sibling tools that audit, test, or profile APIs.

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