Swagger: Scan API Standardization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains the output format (list of validation errors, total count, severity counts) and that it uses organization governance rules. 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. It starts with a clear action verb, explains input/output, provides usage guidance, mentions the toolset, and lists parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately describes the return format (list of errors, total count, severity counts). It also explains the input format and the rule source. It covers the usage context and differentiates from similar tools. The description is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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%, and the description essentially restates the parameter names and types from the schema. While it adds context about providing raw content, it does not significantly add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 runs a standardization scan against an API definition using organizational rules. It specifically says 'Accept a raw YAML or JSON OpenAPI/AsyncAPI definition' and returns validation errors, issue count, and severity counts. It also differentiates from the sibling tool 'swagger_scan_api_standardization_from_registry' by emphasizing that this tool uses content provided directly by the user, not from a registry.

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 explicitly says 'Use this tool when the user provides the API definition content directly (as raw YAML or JSON) and asks to validate, scan, or check the governance or standardization of the API.' This clearly tells the agent when to invoke this tool versus alternatives like the registry-based scan.

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