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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about JWT token forwarding ('Pass jwt_token to forward the caller's JWT for this request only') and body format acceptance. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like error handling, timeout behavior, authentication requirements beyond JWT, rate limits, or what the response format will be (though an output schema exists).

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 perfectly sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specific usage guidance and parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly understand the tool's function and key parameters.

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 complexity of an HTTP POST tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It explains most parameter semantics and provides usage context. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, more behavioral context about side effects would be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters, the description compensates well by explaining the semantics of 4 out of 5 parameters: 'body' accepts JSON object/array or UTF-8 text, 'content_type' overrides Content-Type header, 'jwt_token' forwards JWT, and 'url' requires a full URL. Only the 'headers' parameter lacks explanation in the description. This provides substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Send an HTTP POST request' with the specific verb 'send' and resource 'HTTP POST request'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'Use for create/actions' which differentiates it from other HTTP methods like GET, DELETE, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling HTTP tools beyond the general POST use case.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use for create/actions' and 'Provide a full URL'. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling HTTP tools (like http_get for read operations), but the 'create/actions' guidance implicitly suggests alternatives for other HTTP methods.

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