Read Bruno Request

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description compensates by explaining that the tool returns the same shape for .bru and .yml, making the on-disk format invisible, and that a 'notes' array lists declarations the runner ignores. It also details websocket/grpc message payloads. It does not explicitly state it has no side effects, but 'read' implies read-only, and the content is sufficiently transparent for a read operation.

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 longer than average but each sentence adds value: it defines the output shape, gives usage guidance, explains websocket/grpc handling, and notes the 'notes' array. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically, though it could be slightly tightened without losing 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 there is no output schema, the description fully covers the return content: method, url, headers, params, body, auth, scripts, assertions, vars, settings, docs, and messages for websocket/grpc. It also explains the 'notes' array. For a single-parameter tool, this provides comprehensive context, leaving no major gaps.

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 single parameter filePath is fully described in the schema with details about absolute path and lowercasing. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add more, and indeed it only reiterates that both .bru and .yml are supported. No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided, so 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 the tool's function: reading a single request file as structured JSON. It specifies the resource (request file) and the action (read), and differentiates from sibling tools like create_request and modify_request by focusing on reading the current state. The mention of .bru and .yml formats and the output shape adds specificity.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool: before modify_request to see current state, and after create_request to confirm what was written. It also mentions how websocket/grpc messages are handled, guiding the agent on what to expect. This provides clear context and distinguishes it from alternatives.

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