weflow_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Call a custom WeFlow API endpoint' without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. For a generic request tool, this is a severe gap.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates both purpose and usage guidance, earning its place without excess.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotation context, the description is only one sentence. It fails to explain endpoint structure, authentication semantics, response format, or any operational details, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter-level guidance. The agent receives no explanation of how to construct 'path', format 'body' or 'query', or interpret the 'authenticated' flag.

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 identifies the tool as a generic API caller for custom WeFlow endpoints, explicitly differentiating from dedicated sibling tools with 'Use this for endpoints not covered by dedicated tools.' The verb 'Call' and resource 'custom WeFlow API endpoint' make the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this for endpoints not covered by dedicated tools.' It implies that dedicated tools should be used when available, but it doesn't enumerate specific alternatives or provide exclusion criteria beyond 'not covered.'

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