generate_cheat_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that only local JSON/YAML files are read and no network fetch occurs, but says nothing about what happens on an unreadable or malformed spec, whether output is written to disk or returned inline, or any truncation behavior tied to maxOps.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the single most important constraint. 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool produces (markdown cheat sheet) and its input constraint. It could say a bit more about output shape or failure modes, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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%, so both filePath and maxOps are already documented with defaults and limits. The description reinforces that filePath must be local (not a URL), which adds slight value, but contributes nothing about maxOps beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (generate) and a concrete artifact (a short agent-friendly markdown API cheat sheet) derived from a local OpenAPI file. The scope is unambiguous, though it never contrasts itself with siblings like summarize_by_tag or find_missing_auth, so an agent must infer the distinction from the resource alone.

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?

It gives one clear boundary — local file paths only, remote specs are not fetched — which functions as a 'when-not'. However, it never says when to choose this over summarize_by_tag/find_missing_auth/list_deprecated, and gives no prerequisites such as valid spec format or file accessibility.

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