http_request_with_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool piggybacks on the browser session, combines cookies and authorization headers, and explains how auth extraction works (explicit or from network_index). It mentions the return shape is same as http_request, but does not cover error conditions or rate limits.

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 well-structured with a clear heading, a bullet list of combined features, and a concise parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 1 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core authentication behavior and parameter nuances. It references the output shape and setup requirements (network_start), but could be more thorough on potential failure modes or exact cookie handling.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains the auth_header and extra_headers parameters in detail, and references that common parameters (url, method, etc.) behave like http_request. This adds significant value beyond the schema, though it defers explanation for shared params.

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 it is an authenticated HTTP request that uses the browser's session, distinguishing it from the sibling tool http_request by adding session-based auth. The verb 'make' is implied, and the resource is HTTP requests with session context.

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 explains when to use this tool (when authentication via browser session is needed) and provides context about combining cookies and auth headers. It hints at alternatives by mentioning 'same as http_request' and the need for network_start, but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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