proxypi_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: automatic retry up to 3 times, error diagnosis and patching using Claude, and caching of learned fixes. This goes beyond a simple 'make request' description, though it does not detail return formats or side effects like authentication.

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 succinct and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, then explains the retry behavior, and provides actionable examples. Every sentence adds value without any redundancy.

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?

The combination of schema coverage and description is nearly complete for a request dispatch tool. It lacks an explicit statement about the return value (e.g., response body/status), but given the tool's straightforward nature and the retry details included, it is adequately complete.

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 schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add anything beyond the schema; it merely restates that headers, body, and query params are supported through examples.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a request to any REST API.' It includes examples and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (history, replay, clear) by focusing on the core request functionality.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Any REST endpoint') and includes examples for GET and POST requests. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling tools are obviously different in nature.

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