http_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses that the credential is attached by keywarden and invisible to the caller, that the host must be allow-listed, that redirects are not followed, and that non-HTTP requests are rejected. This exceeds the typical transparency and preempts common failure modes, giving the agent a realistic picture of runtime behavior.

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?

Four concise sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with critical behavioral constraints. Every clause adds unique value—no redundant or fluff content—making it easy to parse and highly digestible.

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 description covers authentication, host authorization, redirects, and HTTPS enforcement, which are the most critical behavioral aspects. However, since there is no output schema, the absence of any mention of response format or error handling is a minor gap—an agent might wonder what the tool returns. Still, for a generic HTTP client, the description is largely sufficient.

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 already documents all parameters with 100% coverage (ref, url, body, method, headers, timeout_ms). The description adds general behavioral context (auth, host restrictions) but does not elaborate on parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage without adding parametric nuance.

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 makes an authenticated HTTPS request using a vaulted credential. It differentiates itself from sibling tools (audit_tail, list_secrets, etc.) by focusing on outgoing requests, and the scope is crisply defined: a single request with auth handled internally. The verb 'Make' plus the resource 'authenticated HTTPS request' is specific and 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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool, emphasizing the need for a vaulted credential and an allowed host, and explicitly notes restrictions (redirects not followed, non-HTTPS refused). It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but given the distinct sibling tools, the context is sufficient. A minor deduction for not explicitly contrasting with alternatives.

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