risha_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions authentication and the basic operation of calling an API, omitting side effects, error behavior, or whether it is read-only or mutating.

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 with two sentences: one for purpose and one for authentication. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the structure could be slightly improved by adding a separation of concerns.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, generic API caller) and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to find operationIds, what the response looks like, or any post-call behavior.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying the 'operationId' parameter or the expected request 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 calls a Risha API operation by operationId. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like risha_get_operation or risha_list_operations, which may lead to confusion.

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 provides authentication guidance but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions relative to sibling tools. Usage is implied by the generic nature of the tool.

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