add_swagger_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the purpose without explaining side effects, whether an existing project is overwritten, whether the URL is fetched immediately, what success/failure looks like, or any access/permission requirements. The verb 'add' implies mutation, but no meaningful behavioral context is provided.

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 sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified: it front-loads the purpose but provides no structured context such as expected behavior, return value, or edge cases. It is not as informative as it could be for the same length.

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 simple two-parameter side-effecting tool, the schema covers parameter semantics and the description states the core operation. But there is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not mention what happens after the call, whether the project must already exist, or how errors are surfaced. It is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps.

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 schema already fully names and describes both required parameters (name and swaggerUrl). The description adds no extra meaning to either parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('添加' / add) and identifies the resource: a project's Swagger/OpenAPI configuration. This clearly separates it from sibling tools that get endpoints, list projects, reload, or clear caches. It is not a 5 because it doesn't clarify whether 'add' means registering a new project, persisting a config, or fetching from the URL.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as reload_swagger or list_swagger_projects. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions selecting this tool over a sibling. Usage is only implicitly inferable from the tool name and the word 'add'.

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