Get Bruno endpoint response examples

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (status, content type, complete response bodies) and that it excludes the full contract. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, authorization needs, or any side effects.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and value proposition. It is front-loaded with key information, though it could be slightly more 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?

Given 3 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use the parameters or what the response structure looks like beyond a vague list.

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 3 parameters (id, path, method) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no information about these parameters, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and required format.

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 returns response examples (status, content type, bodies) and positions itself as a lean alternative to get_endpoint(include_examples: true). This verb+resource pair is specific and distinguishes it from siblings.

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 explicitly frames the tool as an alternative to get_endpoint when only examples are needed, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not list explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools beyond get_endpoint.

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