validate_openapi

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes fetching URLs, reading response body, success/failure outputs, and workflow integration. Does not explicitly state read-only nature, but behavior is well-explained.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose and step number. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value.

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 low schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers inputs and outputs but lacks detail on the analysis and scaffolding return values. Also misses explanation of input_type. Could be more complete.

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 0%, yet description only explains the main parameter openapi_input (file path, URL, inline). The optional parameter input_type is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose unclear.

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 clearly states the tool validates OpenAPI 2/3 specs from file path, URL, or inline input. It specifies the input types and outputs, distinguishing it as step 1 of a workflow.

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?

Provides guidance that it is step 1 and requires user confirmation before step 2. It explains what inputs work (URLs, file paths, inline). Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but context is clear.

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