get_openapi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as a 'get' and 'look up' operation, implying it is read-only and non-destructive. However, it does not explicitly state that it is safe, nor does it mention pagination behavior (offset, max_lines) or what happens in edge cases like no results. The description is adequate but lacks explicit behavioral details beyond the verb choice.

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 long, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and then elaborating on capabilities and usage. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff. It is compact and immediately informative.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide a thorough understanding of the tool. It covers the main purpose, prerequisite workflow, and parameter usage, but it does not describe the output format (e.g., JSON/YAML), the meaning of offset and max_lines for pagination, or error handling. This leaves gaps in what a user can expect from the tool's response.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for the path parameter ('/nf-instances') and schema parameter ('NFProfile'), and by explaining the intended workflow for spec_id and api_name (use list_openapi to discover). This goes beyond the schema's structural descriptions, though it does not cover offset or max_lines.

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 purpose: 'Get OpenAPI definition content for 5G service-based interface APIs (TS 29.xxx series).' It distinguishes from siblings like list_openapi by specifying that it retrieves actual definition content, not just listing available APIs. The mention of looking up HTTP request/response details, paths, and schemas further clarifies the specific resource and action.

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 explicitly advises to 'Use list_openapi first to discover available API names,' providing a clear prerequisite and directing to an alternative tool. It also gives specific usage guidance for parameters: 'Use the path parameter to filter by API endpoint (e.g. /nf-instances) or the schema parameter to filter by data type (e.g. NFProfile).' This tells the user exactly when and how to use the tool.

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