zerodom_repeat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important traits: the request is sent over the active authenticated session and it runs as an in-page fetch (so session cookies and page-origin context apply). It stays silent on redirect handling, whether non-2xx responses are returned or thrown, timeouts, and whether a body is legal on the default GET — meaningful gaps for a raw network tool.

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?

Two sentences that front-load the action and return shape, with the use case following. No filler, though the em-dash clause is doing double duty as both purpose and example.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the {status, body} mention is a helpful extra. But for a 3-parameter, annotation-free request tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves method/body interaction and error behavior undefined — a minimum-viable rather than complete definition.

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 0% — url, body and method are all bare titles with no field-level documentation. The description partially compensates by implying url, a mutable request body, and the POST method, but never explains the GET default, what body accepts (string vs form-encoded vs JSON), or how method interacts with body.

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 one request") and names the mechanism ("active authenticated session (in-page fetch)") plus the metaphor "the Repeater". It distinguishes itself from passive crawling but never names the closest sibling zerodom_replay, so an agent must infer the boundary between the two request 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 phrase "crafting or verifying a request by hand, e.g. replaying a crawl-discovered POST with a tweaked body" gives a concrete scenario, which is real usage guidance. However, it offers no exclusions and no comparison against zerodom_replay, so the agent cannot tell when the alternative is the better choice.

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