http_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that requests are logged and returns the logged entry id, status, timing, and response preview. However, it does not mention potential side effects of sending requests (e.g., modifying target state), rate limits, or error behavior, which are important for a tool that makes network requests.

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 well-structured with an Args section and a Returns section, front-loading the core function. Each parameter gets a concise line. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but earns its place by covering all parameters and return values.

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 complexity (sending arbitrary HTTP requests) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: parameters, return values, and an authorization guard. It could mention error handling or response size limits, but it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains method with examples, url with a clear 'full target URL' and authorization caveat, headers_json as an optional JSON object, and body as optional for POST/PUT. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 sends an HTTP(S) request and logs it to history, with a Burp Repeater + Logger analogy that distinguishes it from siblings like http_get (likely a simple GET) and http_replay (replaying logged requests).

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 context for when to use it (custom requests with logging) via the Burp analogy and includes an authorization note ('a target you're authorized to test'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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