internal_wsgf_v1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), required API key, and the specific environment variables, and points to a guide resource for full details. However, it does not describe the response shape, possible errors, or the actual content of the 'WSGF Overview,' leaving significant behavioral unknowns.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that provide necessary call information (method, required param, auth, and a pointer to a guide). There is no fluff or redundant content.

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?

Despite the presence of a guide reference and schema-required params, the description lacks a clear functional summary of what the endpoint returns or why it is used. The absence of an output schema increases the need for a descriptive explanation, but 'WSGF Overview' remains ambiguous. The tool is internal and has complex query/body structures, so more context is needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema coverage is high (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats that 'query: appid' is required, adding no meaning beyond the schema. The schema's appid type is overly permissive (any type/array), and the description does not clarify the expected format or purpose.

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 only says 'WSGF Overview,' which essentially restates the endpoint name 'wsgf_v1' without explaining what WSGF is or what the overview contains. It lacks a clear verb like 'retrieve' or 'list' and does not distinguish this tool 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives. The description only mentions required parameters and API key requirements, which are call mechanics, not usage context. No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced.

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