generate_api_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the output artifact: markdown, human-readable, with examples. However it says nothing about invalid-spec handling, whether output is returned or written to disk, or size limits—gaps that matter for a generator with no 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence partially restates the first ('documentation' vs 'human-readable API documentation') rather than adding new information, which is minor waste.

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 tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers input source and output format adequately. It stops short of describing error behavior or the markdown structure, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's mention of examples loosely reinforces includeExamples but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail 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?

States a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('markdown documentation') plus the input source ('OpenAPI specification'). It is clear in isolation, but it never distinguishes itself from sibling tools like parse_openapi or generate_sdk, which operate on the same spec artifact.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over generate_sdk, parse_openapi, or generate_mock_data, all of which consume an OpenAPI spec. No prerequisites (e.g., spec must be valid, use validate first) are given.

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