Analyze API spec (preview)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it delivers the single most important trait: this is a read-only preview that writes no files, which is exactly the side-effect information an agent needs before calling. It still omits auth/credential needs and error behavior on invalid specs, keeping it below 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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core guarantee ('without writing any files') plus the intended use are front-loaded before any elaboration.

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 7-param, all-optional tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, the non-destructive guarantee, and the intended workflow. It would be stronger if it sketched the preview's return shape, since no output schema exists to do so.

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 description coverage is 100% and all 7 parameters carry inline descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only hints at filtering via 'curate (filter/inspect)' without adding syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Parse') plus resource ('OpenAPI or Postman spec') and the output ('preview the MCP tools that would be generated'). The clause 'without writing any files' implicitly distinguishes it from generate_mcp_server, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

'Use this to curate (filter/inspect) before generating' gives a clear usage context and implies the workflow with generate_mcp_server. It does not name the alternative explicitly or state exclusions, so it stops 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.