http_request

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

Despite annotations covering the risk profile (destructive=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=false), the description adds genuinely useful behavior: credentials and cookies are auto-injected from the active environment, assertions run automatically, and every request/response is persisted to the history database. It does not warn that non-GET methods can mutate remote state, which is the main residual 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two behaviors an agent most needs to know. No filler or repetition of schema 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?

For a 17-parameter, nested-object, destructive, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers environment injection and history logging but says nothing about the response shape or token-saving controls (returnBody, maxResponseLength, jsonpathFilter) that materially affect how the tool should be called.

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 coverage is 76% across 17 parameters, so the schema itself documents most fields. The description adds nothing parameter-specific — it only alludes to assertions and history logging, without clarifying bodyType, returnBody, jsonpathFilter, or confirmFileAccess semantics beyond what the schema says.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Send a RESTful HTTP request") and adds two distinctive behaviors: credential/cookie injection and assertion evaluation. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like graphql_request or the ws_* tools, so an agent must infer which transport to use, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: this is the generic HTTP transport, while graphql_request and ws_connect exist in the sibling set for other protocols. The description never says when to pick this over those, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the credential-injection note.

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