audit_openapi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the analysis is static and 'does not call endpoints' (a safety-relevant signal), but says nothing about what the lint checks, output shape, or failure modes for malformed specs.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the core action and the key constraint (no endpoint calls) are front-loaded. It is terse to the point of being a fragment, but there is nothing to trim.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, an undocumented nested object parameter, and only a one-line description leave the agent without enough to call this confidently. It should at minimum describe the expected 'spec' input form and what the audit returns.

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 0% for the single required parameter 'spec', and the description never mentions it. Because 'spec' is a nested object, the agent gets no guidance on whether it should be a parsed object, raw string, or what OpenAPI versions/shape are accepted.

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 names a specific verb (lint/review) and resource (OpenAPI 3.0/3.1 specs), and the phrase 'authentication declaration review' scopes it further. It distinguishes itself from compare_openapi by implication (single-spec static analysis) but never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the scope 'static lint and authentication declaration review'; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or statement routing the agent toward compare_openapi for multi-spec scenarios. An agent must infer the boundaries.

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