pv_http_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 reveals the gating mechanism (PrivateVault, ALLOW-only) and the side effect of making an outbound request. However, it does not disclose return value, error handling, or what occurs if the verdict is not ALLOW. While it adds meaningful context, it lacks comprehensive behavioral detail expected without annotations.

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 two sentences with no superfluous content. The primary action ('Make an outbound HTTP request') is front-loaded, followed by the critical gating condition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and constraint, making it concise and well-structured.

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 is relatively simple (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), but the description omits important details such as the return value or response format, which is especially relevant given there is no output schema. It also does not specify behavior when the verdict is not ALLOW (e.g., whether an error is returned). While the core action is covered, these gaps reduce completeness for an agent.

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 all three parameters (url, body, method) have descriptive text in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters, such as formatting requirements or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters adequately, and the description does not enrich them.

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: making an outbound HTTP request, with a specific gating condition (PrivateVault, only if ALLOW). It distinguishes itself from siblings like pv_exec (execution) and pv_write_file (file writing) by focusing on HTTP requests. The verb 'make' and resource 'outbound HTTP request' are 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 mentions the gating condition ('Only sent if the verdict is ALLOW') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for HTTP requests but lacks guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if the request might be blocked) or how it relates to siblings. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present.

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