info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses the non-serving read-only nature, the exact return shape for specs ({title, version, openapi_version, endpoint_count, paths} with operation IDs), the manifest return for packages, and accepted input forms. It does not cover error behavior or edge cases, which keeps 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?

Five short sentences, each earning its place: purpose/scope, spec output shape, package output shape, input format, and usage trigger. The verb+scope is front-loaded and there is zero redundancy or filler.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must disclose both safety and return values — and it does, enumerating outputs for both input kinds and framing the tool as read-only. The lone gap is a slight ambiguity: the sentence 'Pass input as a local file or a public https URL' follows the package clause without scoping, leaving it unclear whether packages also accept URLs.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest clarification by phrasing accepted input as 'a local file or a public https URL' and qualifying the URL as public, but this mostly reinforces rather than extends the schema. No meaningful new semantics are added.

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 ('Summarise an OpenAPI spec or .mockz package') and immediately distinguishes itself from the serving/deploying siblings with 'without serving it'. Among tools like serve_locally, deploy_mock_from_spec, and deploy_mock_from_url, an agent can tell this apart without opening any 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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition: 'Use this when the user wants to know what's in a spec or package before deciding whether to serve or deploy it.' The qualifier 'without serving it' also implies the exclusion of serving/deploying tools. It falls just short of the top bar because no specific sibling tool is named as the alternative.

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