ptero_app_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Make a raw Application API request' without disclosing authentication, destructive potential (e.g., DELETE method), rate limits, or error handling. The agent has minimal guidance.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, given the lack of parameter and behavioral details, it is too sparse. It could include a bit more guidance without losing conciseness.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the response format, error handling, or authentication context. While it hints at when to use it, the overall completeness is low.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The tool description adds no explanation of what method, path, query, or body mean or how to use them. The agent must infer from parameter names and types alone.

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 makes a raw Application API request for endpoints not covered by existing tools. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which target specific endpoints.

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?

It says 'useful for endpoints not mapped as tools yet', providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the dedicated ptero_app_* tools.

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