fluig_rest_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'authenticated GET,' indicating a read operation, but lacks details on response format, error handling, permission requirements for different paths, or any potential side effects. The description is minimal.

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 focused sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is not overly verbose, but could be slightly more structured without becoming lengthy.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description should provide context on response expectations and error handling. It omits these, leaving the agent without a clear understanding of what to expect from the call.

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 100% with a single 'path' parameter and an example. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 as an 'escape hatch' for authenticated GET requests against any Fluig API path. It uses specific verb (GET) and resource (any path), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by framing it as a generic fallback.

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 term 'escape hatch' implies usage when other specific tools (e.g., fluig_dataset_list) are insufficient, but no explicit when to use or when not to use is given. With many sibling tools, more explicit guidance on alternatives would be beneficial.

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