scout_request

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: auto-syncing cookies from the current tab, and that replay mode uses parameters like index and params to reference captured API data. It does not cover rate limits or error handling.

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 very concise, using just two short paragraphs. It front-loads the core purpose ('Send a test HTTP request') and immediately lays out the two modes with examples. Every sentence adds value.

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 has 7 parameters (0 required) and an output schema, the description covers the main behavior, including cookie sync. It does not detail return values (handled by output schema) or error cases, but is sufficient for typical use.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by grouping parameters into modes (index+params for replay, url+method+body for manual) and providing example values. This helps agents understand parameter relationships beyond schema.

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 sends a test HTTP request, with explicit examples for replay and manual modes. It distinguishes its functionality from siblings by specifying the two modes and cookie sync behavior.

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 two use cases (replay from captured API vs fully custom) and when to use each. It also mentions cookie auto-sync behavior. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like scout_fetch.

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