arm_call_api

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Generic ARM API request tool' without detailing authentication requirements, rate limiting, error handling, response format, or side effects. Since it is a generic passthrough, some behavior is implied, but the lack of any explicit behavioral information is a significant gap.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and is appropriately sized for a generic fallback tool. However, it is so brief that it leaves important details on the table, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 generic nature (arbitrary endpoints, methods, bodies) and the sparse schema coverage with no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain how responses are returned, how errors are represented, or how query/body/headers should be structured. This is a critical gap for an agent needing to invoke the tool correctly across diverse ARM API endpoints.

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 provides no parameter information. The input schema has only 20% coverage (path has a description, method has an enum), leaving body, query, and headers undocumented. The description does not compensate for this low coverage, so the agent must infer parameter semantics from names alone, which is insufficient for robust tool selection and invocation.

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 identifies the tool as a generic ARM API request tool for endpoints not yet modeled as dedicated tools. It specifies the action (making API requests) and the resource (ARM API), and explicitly distinguishes its scope from the many sibling tools that handle specific endpoints, making it clear this is the catch-all fallback.

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 states when to use the tool: for additional endpoints not yet modeled as dedicated tools. This implies it should be used only when no sibling tool applies, providing clear context. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the sibling tool set makes the distinction obvious.

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