wefact_request

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that it makes direct API calls, returns JSON, and warns not to include api_key. However, does not discuss side effects, required permissions, or potential destructive actions for mutation operations.

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?

Two short paragraphs with clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague language.

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 its generic nature and lack of annotations, the description effectively covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return value. References external docs. Could still mention potential error handling or rate limits, but overall nearly complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description adds extensive meaning: examples of controller values, action values, explanation that params are a dict matching WeFact docs, and explicit instruction to omit api_key. Greatly enhances agent understanding.

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?

Clearly states 'Call any WeFact controller/action directly.' Explicitly distinguishes from dedicated sibling tools by noting it handles endpoints and parameters not covered by them.

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 endpoints not covered by the dedicated tools below, or to pass parameters that the dedicated tools don't expose.' Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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