webdev_http_status_reference

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions coverage of status code categories but fails to describe how parameters affect behavior (e.g., filtering by category or search), what examples are included, or the output format. The phrase 'Use describe_tool...' suggests additional guidance elsewhere, but the description itself is opaque.

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 short but includes redundant 'Menu ID' and a reference to describe_tool which may distract. It is not overly verbose, but the structure could be improved by front-loading the core purpose and removing extraneous details.

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 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use the tool effectively, what response to expect, or how it differs from other reference tools in the sibling list. The mention of describe_tool indicates the main description is elsewhere, leaving this entry incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 3 required parameters with 0% description coverage. The description provides no meaning for 'category', 'search', or 'includeExamples'. It only vaguely references the categories (1xx, 2xx, etc.) but does not map them to the parameter.

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 it's an HTTP status code reference covering all categories (1xx-5xx) with descriptions, use cases, and examples. The verb 'reference' and specific scope differentiate it from sibling tools which are primarily generators or formatters, though explicit sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a lookup scenario but does not state when not to use it, nor does it mention alternative tools for similar tasks.

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