http_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does substantial work: it explains that the request runs outside a browser, uses a real Firefox TLS/HTTP2 fingerprint, reuses the live browser's cookies by default, and avoids JavaScript execution. These are meaningful execution-model traits beyond what the schema encodes. It leaves some behaviors implicit, such as redirect handling and remote side effects of non-GET methods, but the core behavioral profile is well disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct weight: identity, cookie behavior, and use case. It front-loads the most important distinction ('WITHOUT a browser') and keeps the explanation tight. No filler or redundant restatement of parameter names. The description is model-efficient and well structured.

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 selection criteria well but, given there is no output schema and no annotations, it omits important call-completion details: what the response shape is, whether status/headers are returned, redirect behavior, and whether a live browser session must already exist for cookie reuse. The tool has 9 parameters and no structured return contract, so the description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent invoking it correctly end-to-end.

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 56%, so the schema already documents several parameters. The description adds relevant semantic context for use_browser_cookies by explaining cookie reuse, and it hints at the intended body/URL usage ('APIs, JSON'). However, it does not meaningfully explain method, timeout, url, or how parameters interact (e.g., when body is needed with a method). It adds some value beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 opens with a concrete, distinguishing statement: 'HTTP request WITHOUT a browser' and adds a specific fingerprint detail ('real Firefox TLS/HTTP2 fingerprint'). It then names the intended resource class: 'APIs, JSON, and any page that doesn't need JS.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly separates it from browser-navigation siblings like navigate or smart_fetch.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'use it for APIs, JSON, and any page that doesn't need JS' and contrasts it with navigating, saying it is 'far faster and lighter than navigating.' It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full routing guide, but the context is strong enough for an agent to choose correctly in most cases.

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