Semantic API

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'analyzes' and 'generates a full provider config,' which implies a read-only or processing operation, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, what 'analyze' entails (e.g., web scraping, parsing), or potential side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose in a concise sentence, followed by a brief explanation of the parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is clear and efficient, making it easy for an agent 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?

Given the tool's complexity (analyzing APIs and generating configs), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and behavioral gaps (e.g., missing details on analysis process or error handling), it falls short of being fully comprehensive for safe and effective use.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'url' is for 'URL of the API documentation to analyze' and 'user_intent' is an 'Optional description of what you want to do with this API,' providing clear context for both parameters. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could be more detailed (e.g., format examples).

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's purpose: 'Analyze any API from its documentation URL. Generates a full provider config.' It specifies the verb ('analyze'), resource ('API'), and outcome ('generates a full provider config'), which is clear and specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'semantic_discover' or 'semantic_query', so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of sibling tools or contextual cues for selection. The only implied usage is from the purpose statement, but there are no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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