scheme_get_swagger_json

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses that the doc is built from *current* blocks (so it reflects live state), that unreachable webhooks are reported under x-nana800-broken-webhooks with reasons, and that secrets are masked for project readers. It does not state required permissions or error behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the artifact named first, followed by the content breakdown. Dense but every clause (fields read, response answers, broken-webhook reporting, secret masking) contributes information rather than restating the name.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return value — and it does so thoroughly, including a non-obvious extension field and the masking behavior. Only the handling of an omitted scheme_id and failure modes are left unaddressed.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the env-var fallback, so the schema already does the work. The description says nothing about scheme_id, which is acceptable at this coverage level but adds no value.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact: 'Get the OpenAPI 3 document of the scheme webhooks', then enumerates exactly what the document contains (base URL, paths, methods, params, fields, response answers). This is unmistakably different from siblings like scheme_get or scheme_export, which deal with the scheme itself rather than a generated API spec.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for producing webhook API documentation. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer scheme_export or scheme_get instead, and no stated prerequisites.

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