ima_raw_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does not say whether arbitrary HTTP verbs/mutations are possible, what permissions are required, whether the call is destructive or reversible, how errors surface, or what rate limits apply. For a raw pass-through that can reach any unwrapped endpoint, that is a significant gap; the only behavioral hint is 'raw/direct'.

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?

A single short sentence with the core idea front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the disclosure gaps scored elsewhere.

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 nested-object, raw-API escape hatch with no annotations and no output schema, the agent needs at least a path-format example, allowed methods, and expected request/response shape. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to construct a correct call from the definition alone.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters and does not. It never says whether api_path is relative to which base/version, whether it needs a leading slash or query string, or how the nested 'body' object is mapped (JSON payload vs query params for GET-style paths).

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?

States a specific action: calling an IMA OpenAPI relative path directly, framed as the escape hatch for endpoints that have no dedicated wrapper. Against a sibling list that is entirely composed of named, purpose-built wrappers, an agent can tell this is the generic fallback rather than a task-specific tool. It stops short of naming what kinds of paths are valid, which keeps it from a 5.

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 phrase '用于未封装的新接口' (for new/unwrapped interfaces) implies the selection condition: use this only when no dedicated sibling tool covers the endpoint. But it never explicitly says 'prefer the named tools first' nor lists any exclusions, and gives no prerequisites such as auth or path format requirements.

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