Spec Info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 15-minute in-memory cache, stale fallback on network errors and HTTP 5XX refresh failures, http/https-only URL support, and that headers are optional. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the caching/fallback behavior is genuinely useful operational context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the remote-spec handling details. The second sentence is dense with several facts, but every clause (cache duration, fallback conditions, scheme restriction) carries information and none is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description adequately covers both input forms plus caching/error behavior. For a one-parameter tool this is close to complete; only sibling routing guidance is missing.

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 has 0% description coverage and only declares spec_path as anyOf string|object with no field detail. The description compensates by spelling out the object form ({url, headers}) and clarifying that headers are optional, which the schema alone would leave ambiguous.

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 ('summarize') and resource ('an OpenAPI spec'), which distinguishes it from sibling spec_get (retrieve raw) and spec_list (enumerate). However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.

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?

It explains how to use the tool for remote specs (the {url, headers} form) but gives no explicit guidance on when to pick this over spec_get or spec_list. Usage is implied by 'summarize' rather than declared.

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