grpcgw_add_swagger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add Swagger', leaving unclear whether files are created or overwritten, whether api_key is needed for an external service, or what side effects occur. A mutating tool with zero annotation coverage needs more transparency.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of semantic completeness.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented optional parameter, this one-liner is incomplete. An agent lacks information about what api_key is for, what files or artifacts are produced, and how the operation reports success.

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 only 50%: 'directory' gets a minimal schema description, while 'api_key' is undocumented in both schema and tool description. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning and does not explain the role of api_key or the expected directory contents beyond 'gRPC definitions'.

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 ('Add') and resource ('Swagger'), and qualifies the source as 'gRPC definitions', which gives the operation a clear focus. It doesn't fully disambiguate 'Swagger' (spec vs UI vs annotations) or explicitly compare with sibling tools like docs_generate_swagger_ui and grpcgw_generate, so it stops short of a top score.

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 phrase 'from gRPC definitions' implies the tool is appropriate when working with gRPC proto definitions and needing Swagger output, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or naming of alternatives. Prerequisites such as a project directory or gateway setup are not mentioned.

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