Validate Spec

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is reinforced and expanded by the description's explicit 'Nothing is written either way.' The description also discloses what the import mode returns: same errors and warnings, endpoint/schema/folder counts, detected format, and whether a 3.0 to 3.1 conversion happened. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 two information-dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers input modes, the import alternate, output details, and the no-write guarantee. Every clause contributes necessary information for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 six parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. It explains the primary validation path, the specId path, the import-mode dry run, what results are returned, and the side-effect profile. The default-mode return is reasonably inferable from the phrase 'same errors and warnings.'

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the mode='import' behavior, the content-or-specId exclusivity, and what the dry run reports. It mostly leaves individual parameter nuances like format, convertToOpenApi31, and shortenSchemaNames to the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb, object, and criterion: 'Validate an OpenAPI specification against the standard.' It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like get_spec, export_spec, and lint_spec by emphasizing conformance validation. The two input modes (content or specId) are stated directly, so an agent can understand what the tool operates on.

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 explicitly explains when to provide content versus specId, and when to use the import dry-run mode: 'Set mode to 'import' for a dry run of import_spec instead.' It also adds a critical safety clarification—'Nothing is written either way'—which helps an agent decide to use this tool without side-effect concerns. This gives clear decision guidance relative to the closest related behavior.

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