Raw Kong Admin API request

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies mutability (e.g., POST /config is destructive) but does not explicitly warn about side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The mention of 'arbitrary request' hints at flexibility but lacks explicit safety notes.

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 and an example list, all front-loaded with purpose. Every part adds value: purpose, use case, examples. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 the tool's generic nature, the description covers enough: role as fallback, example endpoints, and parameter hints. Lacks explanation of return values (no output schema), but this is acceptable for a flexible request 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-defined. The description adds context via examples (e.g., '/services/<id>/routes') but does not enhance semantic understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Make an arbitrary request to any Kong Admin API endpoint' and contrasts with CRUD tools, establishing a distinct purpose. It lists specific use cases like nested relations, RBAC, and bulk operations, making the scope 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this for anything the CRUD tools don't cover' and provides concrete examples (e.g., /status, /schemas, /config, nested relations). This gives clear guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings.

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