cml_openapi

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

The description discloses caching behavior (location, duration of 24h) and the ability to force a refresh with refresh=True. Since no annotations are provided, this fills a gap in transparency. It does not mention rate limits or authorization needs, but for a read-only retrieval tool this is sufficient.

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 sentence states the primary purpose immediately, and the second adds caching details and the parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 output schema exists (though not provided), the description adequately covers the return value and caching. It does not mention error conditions or output format details, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for such detail. The description is reasonably complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 only parameter 'refresh' is a boolean with default false, and the description explains it: 'Set refresh=True to force a re-fetch.' Although schema description coverage is 0%, the tool description compensates by clearly explaining the parameter's effect.

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 returns 'CML2's live OpenAPI spec as a JSON string.' This is a specific verb (return) and resource (OpenAPI spec), and it differentiates from the sibling tool 'cml_api' which presumably handles general API calls.

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 implies usage when the OpenAPI spec is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'cml_api' or provide exclusions. Usage guidelines are implied but not elaborated.

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