audit_openapi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'JSON only in this v1 tool' and excludes full validation/security audits, but it does not describe return values, severity of findings, or whether the check is purely read-only. For an audit tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 two short sentences with zero wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the limiting scope follows immediately.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain what an agent gets back from the audit and how findings are represented. It defines scope boundaries but not the return shape, which is important for an audit 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single required 'spec_json' parameter. It adds that the tool accepts 'OpenAPI 3.x JSON' and is 'JSON only in this v1 tool,' clarifying format and version, but it does not explain whether the value is raw JSON text, a file path, or another encoding.

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 verb and resource: 'Check an OpenAPI 3.x JSON spec for common tool integration mistakes.' It clearly scopes the audit to integration mistakes rather than full validation or security, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like audit_workflow.

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 provides boundary conditions — 'Not a full OpenAPI validation or a security audit' — which implies when not to use it. However, it does not say when to prefer this over sibling tools such as audit_workflow or preflight_url, leaving alternative selection implicit.

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