network_curl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the URL is target-validated and output is mostly raw, which are useful constraints. However, it does not discuss potential side effects like network connectivity or authentication requirements. Some transparency provided, but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with Purpose, Constraints, and Example sections. Every sentence provides valuable information without padding. It is concise, front-loaded, and easy 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 tool's 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, key constraints, and an example. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Some parameter details are unexplained, but the description is reasonably complete for a curl wrapper.

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 explains headers format (comma-separated) and gives an example with method, data, cookie. However, it does not detail include_headers, follow_redirects, or extra_args. The description adds some meaning but leaves several parameters to be inferred from their names.

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 tool's function: making HTTP requests with curl, listing specific capabilities (methods, headers, cookies, data, redirects, extra args). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the 'with curl' phrasing and specific scope distinguish it from other network tools. A clear and specific purpose statement.

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 context for usage (e.g., URL validation, header format) and an example, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The purpose implies usage, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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