api_doc_review

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

The description discloses genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: default staged scoping and that pre-existing Swagger/OpenAPI debt will not cause failure. However, it also states the tool will 'record a supplied JSON review result ... as evidence', a persisting write path that directly conflicts with readOnlyHint=true, so the description contradicts the declared safety profile rather than clarifying it.

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 and free of filler, but the phrasing is dense and jargon-heavy ('host-agent review prompt/schema', 'staged or explicit controller/DTO/handler/OpenAPI files'), forcing a re-read to separate the two modes. Meaning is packed in, but readability suffers.

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 nine-parameter, dual-mode tool with no output schema, the description covers default scope and the non-failing behavior but never explains what the rendered prompt/schema returns or what recording actually changes. An agent knows the two modes exist but not what to expect from either.

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 89%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters, and the description adds little per-parameter meaning beyond restating the staged-scope default and the render-vs-record mode split. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource in two modes: render the host-agent review prompt/schema, or record a supplied JSON review result, scoped to controller/DTO/handler/OpenAPI files. That is far more specific than the name alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling api_doc_static_check, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 states the default operating mode (git staged API candidates) and implies the mode switch via 'omit result_file to render prompt/schema', which is useful. But it never says when to pick this over api_doc_static_check or self_verify_candidates, nor when --all or diff_file should be preferred, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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