ig_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that POST/PUT/DELETE require confirm=true, which is an important behavioral constraint. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, and side effects of mutating calls.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no superfluous information. The critical purpose and the key constraint are front-loaded and clear.

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?

While the description gives the core purpose and confirm rule, it lacks contextual integration with sibling tools. It does not explain when to fall back to this generic endpoint caller, how paths should be constructed, or any request/response conventions. The presence of an output schema covers return formatting, but the description still feels incomplete for a 6-parameter generic tool.

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 0% description coverage, and the description only adds meaning for the 'confirm' parameter by stating that mutating methods require it. Other parameters like body, params, path, and version are left entirely to their names, which may be ambiguous for constructing requests.

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 function: 'Call any documented IG REST endpoint.' This specifies the verb (call), resource (IG REST endpoints), and differentiates from siblings, which target specific resources.

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 guidance is given on when to use this generic tool versus the many dedicated sibling tools. It does not state that this is a fallback for undocumented or custom endpoints, nor does it exclude cases where a specialized tool should be preferred.

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