api_doc_static_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that checks are deterministic and syntax-level, which is meaningful context. However it does not say what happens when checks find problems (report vs fail), nor anything about result shape, which matters for a verification tool with no output schema.

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, zero filler: the capability and its check taxonomy come first, then the routing instruction to the sibling. Every clause 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?

For a read-only checker with 83% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and ordering adequately. The notable remaining gap is what a run returns or how findings are surfaced, which the agent must discover empirically.

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 83%, above the threshold where the schema carries parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail; the mention of controller/DTO/handler/OpenAPI scope is only implicit through the check taxonomy.

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 and resource (run deterministic API documentation checks) and then enumerates the exact omission classes covered: missing operation descriptions, params, body/query/header docs, 400/401 responses, and NestJS DTO decorators. The 'deterministic' qualifier also distinguishes it from the LLM-driven api_doc_review sibling.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool in a workflow with 'Use before api_doc_review', which is strong sequencing guidance against a named sibling. It does not state when to skip the tool or what to do if checks fail, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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