validate_spec

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

Without annotations, the description effectively discloses the key behavioral trait of not resolving external references, which sets expectations for validation scope. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but that is implicit for a validator.

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 concise sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description provides sufficient context for the agent to understand its behavior and constraints. It could mention that it returns validation results, but the output schema likely covers that.

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?

The description adds meaning to the single parameter 'source' by indicating it refers to a local OpenAPI 3.x file, but it does not specify whether it expects a file path or file content. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates, but more detail on input format would help.

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 action ('Validate'), the resource ('a local OpenAPI 3.x file'), and a key constraint ('without resolving external references'), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like compare_specs or list_breaking_changes.

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 when to use (validating a local spec file) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when not to use. It could be improved by specifying that this tool is for local files only and does not compare or generate changelogs.

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