Swagger: Scan API Standardization from Registry

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful process detail: it fetches the API definition from the registry internally, scans it against governance/standardization rules, and returns validation errors, issue counts by severity, and a UI URL. This is meaningful context beyond the 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 core behavior and usage are front-loaded, with useful output and process details following. However, the explicit parameter list duplicates the schema, and 'existing API' appears multiple times, introducing minor redundancy. Overall, it remains well-structured and efficient.

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 three-parameter read-only scan tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states inputs, internal behavior, return contents, and when to use it. It could be stronger by naming the distinction from swagger_scan_api_standardization explicitly, but the registry-based identification is already clear from the text and name.

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 all three parameters. The description repeats the parameter list and adds slight context (e.g., org provides the standardization rules, case-sensitivity), but does not add substantial meaning 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 states a specific action ('Run a standardization scan'), the exact resource (an API existing in SwaggerHub Registry), and the identifying triple of org, API name, and version. It clearly differentiates from the sibling swagger_scan_api_standardization by emphasizing the API already exists in the registry and is fetched internally.

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 gives explicit context: 'Use this tool when the user identifies the API by org name, API name, and version and asks to validate, scan, or check the governance or standardization of an existing API.' It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of a full when-to-use vs. alternatives explanation.

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