util_openapi_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'likely auth surface' as a hint, but does not specify if the tool is read-only, requires network access, or what side effects occur. The lack of transparency is significant.

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, well-formed sentence. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. However, it omits essential details, which would be acceptable if the schema and annotations provided them, but they do not.

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 the absence of annotations, an almost empty output schema, and a single parameter with no description, the tool description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to understand inputs or outputs. It is critically incomplete.

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?

The input schema has a single parameter 'arguments' typed as an object with additionalProperties true, and no description. The tool description offers no explanation of what should be provided in that object, leaving the agent without critical information to invoke the tool correctly.

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's function: summarizing an OpenAPI document, including specific elements like title, version, paths, tags, and auth surface. The verb 'summarize' and the named resource make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as util_api_health_report or util_api_integration_readiness. No context about prerequisites or scenarios is given.

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