ti_request

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and open-world, yet the description still adds real behavior: rate limiting still applies, the response is raw JSON, and two classes of undocumented endpoints are actively refused. The note that the API performs actions on GET but this tool is read-only is exactly the kind of subtlety annotations can't convey.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then usage examples, then hard constraints. The parenthetical explaining why action segments are refused is dense but necessary, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers the return value (raw JSON), the auth/rate-limit caveat, and the path grammar needed to call it safely. It stops short of describing error responses for refused paths or whether large results are paginated, which matters for an open-world proxy like this.

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 100%, so a solid baseline is already met, but the description adds genuine meaning for the dominant path parameter: it must start with a collection section or one of search, sequence_list, user, utils, and action/file segments are invalid. Query-parameter semantics are only illustrated by example (limit, seqUpdate) rather than explained, keeping this short of a 5.

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 and resource ("performs GET /api/v2/{path}") and immediately frames it as the escape hatch for endpoints "this server does not model," which cleanly separates it from the modeled siblings like ti_get_item or ti_get_collection. An agent knows exactly what it does and that it is the fallback option.

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 explicit trigger conditions (a documented read-only TI endpoint the server doesn't model) and explicit exclusions (action segments and file segments are refused), plus concrete example paths. It does not name individual modeled siblings to prefer first, which is the only gap against the 5 bar.

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