testmo_get

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 the tool performs a raw GET, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, error handling, response format, or rate limits. The behavior is minimally transparent but lacks deeper context.

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, front-loaded with the 'Escape hatch' label, and every word earns its place. It is direct, clear, and free of fluff.

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?

For a generic raw GET tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains its purpose and when to use it. It doesn't describe return values, but since it's a raw passthrough, that's not necessary. However, it could mention how errors are surfaced.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, describing it as the API path after /api/v1 with examples. The description reinforces this by saying 'everything after /api/v1' but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 performs a raw GET against any Testmo API path, with the specific scope of 'everything after /api/v1'. It also positions itself as an escape hatch for endpoints not covered by other tools, distinguishing it from the sibling tools that 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?

The description explicitly says to use it for endpoints not covered by the other tools, providing a clear when-to-use directive. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or give explicit when-not-to-use scenarios beyond that, so it falls short of a 5.

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