http_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions request features such as auth, retry, timeout, and download, but these are also documented in the schema. It does not disclose behavioral aspects like response format, side effects of mutating methods, or error handling, leaving some ambiguity for a tool that can modify remote resources.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists capabilities in a compact list. No redundant or filler 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects) and no output schema, the description gives a good overview but omits response structure and error behavior. It is adequate for a generic HTTP client but not fully complete without output schema details.

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 input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates key feature groupings (JSON body, auth types, retry, download) but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 it is an 'HTTP client' and enumerates all supported methods (GET/POST/PUT/DELETE/PATCH/HEAD), making the tool's action and resource unmistakable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like download_tool or efs_* which have different purposes.

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 the tool (whenever an HTTP request is needed) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it doesn't mention that download_tool might be preferred for simple file downloads. Clear context but no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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