API-specificatie ophalen

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the tool attempts to retrieve the spec, returns only GET paths by default, and offers a full-spec option. It does not detail output format or failure modes, but for a read-only introspection tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the core behavior, the second gives the practical usage trigger. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 simple optional-boolean introspection tool, the description provides enough context: purpose, output scope, and when to invoke it. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the exact output format would improve completeness, but it is not a critical gap.

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 schema already fully documents the only parameter 'full' with its default and meaning. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but with 100% schema coverage this meets the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('ophalen') and resource (OpenAPI/Swagger-specificatie) and specifies that it returns available GET paths. This clearly distinguishes it from the data-access sibling tools like teamhood_raw_get.

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 an explicit trigger: use this tool when another tool returns a 404, so you can discover the endpoint name in your version. It provides clear context but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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