Get API Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds an Error Handling section stating that an error is returned if the spec name has not been loaded. It also provides the full return structure. No contradiction with 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 description is well-organized into Args, Returns, Examples, and Error Handling sections, with the main purpose stated first. It is slightly verbose for a one-parameter tool, but every section earns its place by providing concrete guidance and examples.

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 read-only info tool, the description covers purpose, return format, parameter prerequisite, and error behavior. The annotations cover the safety profile. Given the tool's low complexity, there are no significant gaps.

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?

The single parameter `spec_name` is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description's Args section repeats the schema description verbatim, adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get general information about a loaded OpenAPI/Swagger specification') and lists key fields, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that drill into endpoints, schemas, or paths. The phrase 'high-level summary' reinforces its distinct role.

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 explicitly states 'Use this tool to get a high-level summary of an API spec' and provides two example user intents ('Tell me about this API', 'What's the base URL'). It also links to the sibling tool `swagger_list_loaded` for finding available spec names. However, it does not mention alternatives for endpoint-specific info or explicitly say when not to use it, so a 4 rather than 5.

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