openapi_generate_client

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only restates the core action. It does not disclose whether files are written, whether existing files are overwritten, what SDK languages are generated, or what the api_key parameter is actually needed for.

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 focused sentence with no filler or repeated information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple surface area.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral and usage context. It is insufficient for an agent to know what output to expect, whether the directory is the input spec location or output target, and when the API key is required. These gaps are significant for a code-generation 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which keeps this at the baseline score of 3.

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 clear verb and resource: generate an API client SDK from an OpenAPI spec. It distinguishes itself from openapi_generate_server and openapi_generate_types, but it does not clarify how it differs from the similarly named sibling sdk_from_openapi.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as sdk_from_openapi, openapi_generate_server, or openapi_generate_types. There is no mention of prerequisites, when the Pro/Enterprise API key is required, or what directory should contain.

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