apidog_analyze

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the two analysis modes and what they inspect (missing summaries, duplicate IDs, orphaned schemas), implying a read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify data, which is a minor gap given destructive siblings exist.

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-loaded with the purpose, and concisely covers the key parameters and their defaults without fluff. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the core behavior (checks and defaults) and the parameter semantics. However, with no output schema, it does not mention what the tool returns or the format of the analysis result. This omission prevents a perfect score for completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics to the 'checks' parameter by explaining what 'coverage' and 'validate' actually do (e.g., missing summaries, duplicate IDs), which goes beyond the schema's enum listing. This justifies a score above baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('Apidog module'), and enumerates the two check modes ('coverage' and 'validate') with concrete examples. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like apidog_export, apidog_delete, and apidog_get, which have different purposes.

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 explains how to use the 'checks' parameter to select coverage, validate, or both, and notes the default behavior. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools. Since no sibling tool performs analysis, this is sufficient.

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