rest_get

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

The description states 'Hanya membaca; tidak mengubah konfigurasi' (Only reads; does not change configuration), which is a key behavioral trait. No annotations were provided, so this description carries the full burden. It lacks details on authentication or rate limits, but for a generic GET, this is sufficient.

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 concise, about four lines, with a clear structure: purpose, examples, and argument details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 purpose, usage, and parameter format. It does not mention the return format (likely JSON), but given no output schema, it's not strictly required. It is missing some behavioral details like error handling, but for a simple GET tool, it is fairly complete.

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 description explains the 'path' parameter format ('tanpa awalan /rest, mis. ip/dns'), which adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare definition. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well.

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 a generic GET read-only REST path tool for items without dedicated tools, with examples like 'interface/wireless'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as rest_write (write) and many specific list tools.

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 explicitly says 'untuk hal yang belum punya tool khusus' (for things without a dedicated tool) and 'Hanya membaca' (read-only), providing strong guidance on when to use. It could be more explicit about avoiding use when a dedicated tool exists, but it's implied.

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