ghost_http_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the operation (GET) and the exact return shape, but it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, redirect/timeout behavior, or error handling. This is adequate but minimal.

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 sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides the return format, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 description covers the essential action and return shape, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it omits guidance on the headers parameter, usage versus ghost_http_post, and failure/error behavior, leaving noticeable gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no meaning to the 'url' and 'headers' parameters. The agent is left to infer from the parameter names that 'url' is the request target and 'headers' is an object of HTTP headers, which is not explicitly confirmed.

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 states a specific operation, 'HTTP GET', and explicitly defines the return contract as '{status, body}'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling ghost_http_post and other tab/browser tools without requiring the agent to open the schema.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that ghost_http_post should be used for POST requests, nor does it provide any context about when an HTTP GET is appropriate or inappropriate.

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