خواندن مستقیم از API میزیتو

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the blocked module families and a pointer to docs/site-map/api.md for the authoritative endpoint list. It stops short of describing error or rate-limit behavior, so not a 5.

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 tightly-packed sentences: capability, then scope constraints, then the reference pointer. Front-loaded and every clause carries information.

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 an open-ended passthrough tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it can reach, what is blocked, and where the full contract lives. The absence of any return-shape guidance is inherent to a generic proxy, so the gap is minor.

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%, so the endpoint 'module.method' format and the payload JSON body example are already documented in the schema. The description only adds a pointer to external docs rather than semantics of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Call any read-only Mizito endpoint directly') and carves out its niche as the escape hatch for data the other 30+ siblings do not cover. An agent can immediately tell this apart from the specific domain 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?

Gives both sides of the routing decision: use it for data other tools do not cover, and it names the permitted method shapes (get*/search*/history/info/view-style, monitor.* reports). It also states explicit exclusions (account, session, billing, admin-repair modules blocked), which is a genuine 'when not to use' signal.

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