veto_openapi_gen

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it optionally writes a file, which is a side effect, but doesn't clarify overwrite behavior, permissions needed, or any error scenarios. For a tool with no annotation safety details, more behavioral context would improve transparency.

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: one for core function and one for output/side effect. It is efficient and front-loads key information. No superfluous text, but could be slightly more structured by separating input handling.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return as a string (YAML) and optional file write. It covers the main behavior and parameters. Missing details on error handling or parameter combinations (e.g., if both file_path and project_dir are provided) but still adequate for basic usage.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning—it confirms the framework parameter's purpose and links write_file to 'optionally writes to openapi.yaml'—but does not substantially enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 reads route files and generates an OpenAPI 3.1 spec YAML. It specifies supported frameworks and the optional file write. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like veto_doc_gen or veto_api_contract, though the task is distinct.

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 needing to generate an OpenAPI spec from route files, but provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or which alternatives to consider. Lack of exclusions or context for choosing between parameters limits clarity.

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