developer_openapi_parser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions parsing, validation, and returning a summary, which are core behaviors. However, it lacks details on error handling (invalid specs), any idempotency guarantees, or potential limitations like spec size limits.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loading the action and outcome with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 simple parser with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and input format. However, it fails to describe the output format (what constitutes 'endpoints summary'), which an agent would need to know. Lacks details on validation behavior.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter whose description already states 'OpenAPI specification string in JSON or YAML format'. The tool description adds no new information beyond echoing this, so it provides minimal added value over the schema.

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 'parse and validate' and the resource 'OpenAPI (Swagger) 3.0 / 3.1 specification', with a specific output 'returning endpoints summary'. It distinguishes from all sibling tools, none of which parse OpenAPI specs.

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 when handling OpenAPI specifications but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. While no sibling tool competes directly, context about supported spec versions and error handling is missing.

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