get_openapi_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool fetches a live ('en marche') FastAPI app's schema and synthesizes it, which is useful behavioral context about network dependency. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior for unreachable URLs, auth requirements, or whether the synthesis is deterministic, leaving some gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 compact, around 3 sentences, and leads with the primary purpose before giving the base_url usage hint. The placement of the param note after the main purpose statement is reasonable front-loading, with no filler or redundant content.

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 2 params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives a solid purpose and primary parameter but omits timeout_s semantics and error/prerequisite behavior. It adequately covers the main use case but leaves meaningful gaps for edge cases like unreachable URLs or unexpected schema formats.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents base_url with an example format ('ex http://127.0.0.1:8000'), which is genuinely helpful. However, timeout_s is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so the description fails to fully cover both parameters.

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+resource: 'Recupere le schema OpenAPI d'une app FastAPI en marche' and synthesizes routes, parameters, body model, required fields, and response codes. It distinguishes from siblings by being the schema-fetching tool among endpoint-calling and testing tools, though without explicitly naming a sibling alternative.

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 tells the agent to use this tool 'AVANT d'appeler un endpoint' to know the exact contract instead of guessing, which is clear when-to-use guidance. However, it doesn't state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like call_endpoint for direct invocation, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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