workbench-mcp

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 key behavioral traits: the read-only nature, JWT token forwarding for authentication, fallback to API_BEARER_TOKEN, and the override rule for headers.Authorization. It lacks details on rate limits or error handling, but covers essential operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific usage notes in bullet-like sentences. Each sentence adds value—no waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters and clear behavioral rules.

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 moderate complexity (HTTP request with auth handling), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key parameters, though it could mention response format or error scenarios, which the output schema may address.

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 compensate. It explains the purpose of 'url' ('Provide a full URL'), 'jwt_token' (for forwarding JWT, with fallback logic), and 'headers' (with the constraint on Authorization). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though not exhaustive for all parameters.

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 specific action ('Send an HTTP GET request') and resource ('read-only resource retrieval'), distinguishing it from siblings like http_post or http_delete. It explicitly mentions the HTTP method and purpose, avoiding tautology.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use for read-only resource retrieval' defines the primary use case, and it implicitly contrasts with other HTTP methods (e.g., POST for creation) among siblings. It also specifies when to use jwt_token versus default behavior.

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