veto_openapi_gen

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by noting that the spec can optionally be written to a file (openapi.yaml), which is a mutation. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these; the write is optional and not necessarily destructive. The description could be more explicit about overwriting behavior.

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 sentences, front-loading the core action and then stating the output behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, partial schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the core functionality and optional write, but could better explain the two scanning modes (single file vs project) implied by file_path and project_dir parameters.

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%, so the input schema already describes all 5 parameters. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, other than implying the write_file parameter's effect. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (reads and generates), the resource (Express/FastAPI/Hono/Fastify route files), and the output (OpenAPI 3.1 spec YAML). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like veto_doc_gen by focusing specifically on OpenAPI spec generation from route files.

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 the tool is for generating OpenAPI specs from route files, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when a different documentation tool is more appropriate.

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