http_request

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the return (status code, body up to 4 KB) and lists allowed methods, but lacks details on error handling, timeout, authentication, or potential side effects like mutation for non-GET methods.

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the purpose, with no redundant or wasted words. 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?

For a simple HTTP request tool, the description covers the main function, return values, and usage context. However, it omits details like error codes, response headers, or custom headers, which might be needed for complex interactions.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It effectively describes method (allowed values) and body (optional JSON for POST/PUT). However, it does not elaborate on url format or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 makes an HTTP request to test running web servers, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like fetch_webpage (external) and run_shell_command (general command execution) by tying its use to servers started with run_background_process.

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 to use after starting a server with run_background_process, providing clear context. However, it does not list when to avoid this tool (e.g., for external websites) or compare to fetch_webpage, missing some exclusions.

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