loadSwagger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's core behaviors: loading from URL or local file, supporting OpenAPI 2.0/3.x and JSON/YAML, and returning a structured summary. However, it does not mention error handling or whether network requests are made, but these are reasonable inferences from the description.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then details supported inputs and usage context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the tool's input, supported formats/versions, output summary, and primary use case. Since there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of the returned fields (endpoints, schemas, auth types, base URL) is valuable. It is complete for a straightforward loader, though it does not provide a precise return structure.

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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters (source and format) with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that source is a URL or local file and mentions JSON/YAML, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already states. Therefore, baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: 'Load and parse OpenAPI/Swagger spec from URL or local file.' It also specifies the output ('Returns structured summary: endpoints, schemas, auth types, base URL') and distinguishes it from sibling code-generation tools by noting it is a first step before generating models or client code.

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 explicit contextual guidance: 'Use this first to understand an API before generating models or client code.' This clearly signals when to use it (before code generation) and implies it is not the final generation step. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or list exclusions, but the timing is clear.

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