Postman

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations convey, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific information is returned. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple single-parameter input schema, rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., spec details, metadata) or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving gaps in contextual understanding for the agent.

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%, with the single parameter 'specId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as format examples or where to find spec IDs, so it relies entirely on the schema. With high coverage, the baseline score of 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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('information about an API specification'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'getAllSpecs' or 'getSpecDefinition', which appear to retrieve similar types of specification information, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.

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 like 'getAllSpecs' or 'getSpecDefinition'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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