hacer_request_http

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status, headers, and body, and lists all parameters with their behavior (e.g., timeout range 1-60, methods allowed). It does not mention side effects (likely none) or error handling, but for an HTTP request tool this is sufficient.

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 relatively concise: two sentences for purpose, then a labeled list of parameters. It front-loads the main action and use cases. Could be slightly more structured, but it is clear and to the point.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters (1 required) and an output schema exists. The description explains the function and all parameters adequately. It could include an example or note about JSON handling, but it is complete enough for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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%, but the description's docstring provides explanations for all 5 parameters: url, metodo (lists methods), headers_json (example JSON), body (for POST etc.), timeout (range). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though defaults and constraints are already in the schema.

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's purpose: 'Realiza una petición HTTP completa y devuelve status, headers y body.' It specifies use cases (probar APIs REST, analizar respuestas, debuggear servicios) and the resource is an HTTP request. The sibling tools are all different network/utility tools, so this tool is clearly distinguished as the HTTP request tool.

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 explains when to use the tool (testing REST APIs, analyzing responses, debugging web services). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that there is no ambiguity. A clear usage context is provided.

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