parse_openapi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool validates and returns detailed information including endpoints, methods, and schemas, but it does not describe error handling for invalid specs, whether URL fetching has network or timeout implications, or any other side effects. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but incomplete.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and input forms, followed by a clear statement of return content. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

Given a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns. It does not clarify validation error behavior or how it relates to sibling tools, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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 (input and isUrl) are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'JSON/YAML string or URL' aligns with the schema but adds no new syntactic or semantic detail, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs (parse, validate) and names the resource (OpenAPI/Swagger specification) and input forms (JSON/YAML string or URL). It clearly distinguishes the tool from generators like generate_sdk or testers like test_api_endpoint, but does not explicitly name or differentiate from any sibling tool, keeping it at a 4.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as list_endpoints or generate_sdk. There are no exclusions or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over its siblings.

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