Generic API Passthrough

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that it can make any method (GET, POST, PUT) and accepts arbitrary paths, which is helpful, but it does not clarify potential side effects (e.g., destructive actions, rate limits, authentication requirements) or what happens on errors. This is average given the tool's generic nature and absence of annotations.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes essential examples and usage guidance without unnecessary fluff. Slight deduction because the path format explanation could be integrated more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient.

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, the description covers key aspects: path handling, method flexibility, and usage context. It lacks details on response handling (e.g., 'returns raw JSON') and error cases, but since it's a passthrough, that might be expected. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly, with the schema handling parameter specifics.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (path, body, query, method) having descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal extra parameter info, mostly clarifying path formats (absolute vs relative) and the fallback behavior, which is a small addition. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents all parameters.

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: 'Call any SD.Next REST endpoint directly', specifying the resource (SD.Next REST endpoints) and the verb (call). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'v1 or v2, any method' and providing examples of valid paths, which sets it apart from dedicated sdnext_* tools.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use only when no dedicated tool fits; prefer dedicated sdnext_* tools.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool (generic endpoint access) and when not to (when a dedicated tool exists), and even names the alternative category (sdnext_* tools).

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