convert_openapi_to_utcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must handle transparency. It mentions 'automatically maps' but does not disclose output format, error handling, limitations (e.g., only OpenAPI 3.0), or side effects. Adequate but lacks detail expected for a conversion tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no extraneous words. 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?

The tool is complex (conversion with parameter nesting), but the description lacks details on output (no output schema), error states, and steps after conversion. It is adequate for a simple purpose but incomplete for production use.

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 100% with one parameter fully described. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, restating that the input is an OpenAPI 3.0 specification. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Convert' and the resource 'OpenAPI 3.0 specification to UTCP manual'. It mentions specific mappings (endpoints, parameters, authentication) and distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_utcp_manual' which builds a manual from scratch, and 'validate_utcp_manual' for validation.

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?

Usage is implied (use when you have an OpenAPI spec to convert), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if the spec must be valid or if other conversion tools exist.

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