htb_api_get

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

The description declares the tool is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait. It also explains default API version and how to target other versions. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling, which would be helpful with no annotations provided.

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 extremely concise with three sentences, each serving a clear purpose. It is front-loaded with the main action and examples, wasting no words.

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 tool with no output schema and two parameters, the description covers the main purpose and version handling. However, it lacks detail on the optional parameter and the return format, making it incomplete for full agent understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only partially explains the 'path' parameter via an example. The 'params_json' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving the agent to guess its purpose and usage.

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 is for calling a read-only HTB API path for endpoint discovery, providing an example path. This distinguishes it from write tools like htb_api_post among siblings.

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 for endpoint discovery but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context for when not to use it are given.

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