battery_call

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently discloses host restrictions, exact return contents (status, headers, body), and the deliberate first-try machine-readable error behavior. It stops short of covering rate limits or authentication details, but the key behavioral traits are 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?

The description is three sentences with the core action, scope, and return behavior front-loaded. The 'same already-approved tool-call surface' phrase adds useful safety context but is slightly redundant with the rest of the sentence. Overall, it is appropriately sized 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?

For a 4-parameter HTTP execution tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to know: the exact URL source, the supported methods/headers/body coming from the prompt, the host restriction, and the response shape. It does not detail rate limits or authentication mechanics, but the essential operational context is present.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds general guidance that parameters should come from the task prompt, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute one battery task's HTTP request on your behalf.' It further clarifies scope with 'Scoped to https://verigent.ai only', making the tool's role distinct from curl/shell usage and easily distinguishable from sibling 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 tells agents when to use the tool: whenever a battery task asks for a specific header or auth scheme, no curl or shell is needed. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the intended context is clear and actionable.

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