http_head

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the operation. It never explains that HEAD returns headers without a body, how redirects or timeouts behave (left only to schema defaults), or the safety/read-only nature of the call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, though it is arguably too terse for a six-parameter tool with a nested auth object.

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 a tool with six parameters, a nested auth configuration, and no annotations or output schema, a one-line description is insufficient. Key behavioral facts such as the bodyless nature of HEAD responses and the reliance on schema defaults are missing.

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 every parameter including the nested auth object is documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (HEAD request) and resource (HTTP), and HEAD is a distinct HTTP method that separates it from http_get and the other method siblings. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from the many sibling HTTP tools and adds an irrelevant implementation detail ('using curl').

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus http_get, http_post, or curl_custom, and no statement of conditions or exclusions. The agent must infer that HEAD is for metadata-only retrieval on its own.

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