Swagger: Scan API Standardization from Registry

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it fetches the API definition internally and returns validation errors, counts by severity, and a UI URL. 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 purpose statement, usage context, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter list could be omitted since it duplicates the schema.

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 read-only scan tool with no output schema, the description explains the return values (errors, counts, URL) sufficiently. It differentiates from the sibling tool and covers all aspects of usage.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The description's 'Parameters' section repeats the schema but adds no new information beyond what's already in the input 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 it runs a standardization scan on an API from SwaggerHub Registry using orgName, apiName, version. It distinguishes from the sibling 'swagger_scan_api_standardization' which likely scans a provided spec, not from 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 states when to use this tool: when the user identifies the API by org name, API name, and version and asks to validate, scan, or check governance/standardization. It implies not for scanning inline specs, but doesn't provide explicit exclusions.

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