list_openapi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the basic action (listing definitions) and optional filtering, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, authentication requirements, or performance implications. For a simple read-only list tool, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence defines the action and resource; the second provides usage context and an optional filter. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It links usage to get_openapi and mentions filtering. However, it does not explain the return data shape (e.g., list of API names) or differentiate from other sibling tools like list_specs or search_openapi. Slight room for improvement.

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% (the single parameter spec_id has a schema description). The description adds 'Optionally filter by spec ID,' which mirrors the schema. Since the schema already documents the parameter fully, the description adds minimal extra meaning, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'List available OpenAPI definitions from 3GPP specifications (TS 29.xxx series).' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('OpenAPI definitions'), and distinguishes from siblings like get_openapi (which gets a specific definition) and list_specs (which lists specs). The context 'discover API names before calling get_openapi' further clarifies its role.

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 tells when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover API names before calling get_openapi.' It also mentions optional filtering by spec ID. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives (e.g., list_specs), the guidance is clear and contextually useful for an AI agent.

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