Generate spec from collection

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

Annotations indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description adds that the response contains a polling link to task status, disclosing the asynchronous nature of the operation. This is valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail other side effects or permissions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no wasted words. It states what it does and mentions the asynchronous result link concisely.

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 tool with 5 parameters (all schema-documented) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the main behavior and notes the polling link for status. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., collection must exist) but that is implicit and acceptable.

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 documents all parameters. The description adds no new information about parameters beyond reinforcing the spec type via 'OpenAPI 2.0, 3.0, or 3.1'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 generates an OpenAPI specification (2.0, 3.0, or 3.1) for a given collection. It uses a specific verb+resource structure and differentiates from siblings like createSpec or generateCollection by focusing on the conversion from collection to spec.

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 implies usage (for a given collection) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks the explicit when/when-not guidance seen in higher-scoring tools, though the context is reasonably clear.

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