Compact API card

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about the tool's lightweight nature and explicitly forbids running shell/scripts, which is a behavioral constraint not in annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the purpose before routing to siblings and constraints. Slightly dense but each sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema absent, read-only), the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what to avoid. It also names the next step, making it complete for an agent planning a test.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented. The description does not add much detail about the two parameters beyond what's in the schema, but it does imply apiPath is the target and workspaceRoot is the context. 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 clearly states the tool returns a compact API summary (method, url, inputs, outputs, suggested paths) and explicitly contrasts with 'dumping the full file.' This distinguishes it from siblings like read_documentation and discover_api.

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 explicitly says to prefer this over reading the whole file when generating or planning a test, and names the next-step sibling (scaffold_test). It also lists disallowed commands/tools (testlight, npx, npm, shell, node), giving clear when/not-when guidance.

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