apidog_validate_openapi

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

The description adds a useful behavioral trait (no import, implying no side effects), but with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose return values, error behavior, or validation specifics. It leaves the agent uncertain about what success/failure looks like, which is a notable gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without any redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to use confidently. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, errors, report) or whether validation is syntax-only or semantic. This is a significant gap for a validation tool, as the agent cannot predict the outcome.

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 schema only provides a parameter named 'document' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by clarifying that the document is an OpenAPI document and can be JSON or YAML, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify whether a string is file content or a file path, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 with a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('OpenAPI document'), and the qualifier 'without importing it' distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_openapi. It is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to validate an OpenAPI document) and implicitly differentiates it from import by noting 'without importing it.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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