get_security_schemes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does indicate a read-only 'obtiene' operation and states the source of the schemes (OpenAPI specifications). It does not disclose behaviors such as error handling, pagination, or what happens when specId is omitted — although the schema notes that behavior, so it is not completely hidden.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and includes a parenthetical list of scheme types that adds useful detail without bloat. Structurally front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, so full context is largely achieved. The description covers what is returned, and the schema covers the parameter behavior. The only missing piece is an explicit statement that an omission of specId returns schemes across all specs, but that is already in the schema description.

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 only parameter, specId, has 100% schema description coverage ('opcional, si se omite lista todos'). The main description does not add any additional parameter detail beyond the schema baseline. The mention of scheme types (Bearer token, API Key, OAuth2) describes output concepts, not parameter 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'obtiene' (gets) and 'esquemas de autenticación y seguridad' (authentication/security schemes), and names concrete types (Bearer token, API Key, OAuth2). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_endpoint_doc or get_schema_doc, but does not explicitly distinguish itself by name.

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 intended use is implied: this tool is for retrieving security schemes from OpenAPI specs. However, it never explicitly explains when to use this tool versus a sibling, such as get_endpoint_doc or get_schema_doc, which may also provide security-related information. Guidance is functional but not direct.

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