Swagger: Scan API Standardization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds context about what the tool returns (validation errors, counts by severity), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, usage guidance, and parameter list. The 'Toolset: Registry API' line is slightly redundant but not detrimental. Overall concise with no wasted text.

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 an output schema, so return values need not be fully described. The description covers input format, use case, and key output elements. Missing edge cases or error handling, but acceptable given output schema and annotations.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description re-iterates these descriptions with slight additional context (e.g., 'to use for standardization rules'), but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 verb 'run a standardization scan', identifies the resource as 'API definition', and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it accepts raw YAML/JSON content directly (unlike swagger_scan_api_standardization_from_registry). It also details the output (validation errors, counts).

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this tool when the user provides the API definition content directly' and implies alternative for registry-based scans. Could be improved by naming the sibling tool explicitly, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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