generateCurlExample

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the output includes (headers and example body), but does not disclose whether the operation has side effects, requires authentication, or what happens for invalid inputs. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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, concise sentence that clearly communicates the tool's function. No unnecessary words or repetition, and the information about headers and request body is efficiently included.

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 simple generation tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the core functionality and output contents. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and does not describe the exact return format, but these are not critical for correct invocation. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to select and use the tool.

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 100% for both parameters (path and method), with clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate. It does not explain how parameters affect the generated curl command beyond what the schema already states.

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 generates an example curl command for a specific endpoint, including headers and request body. The verb 'Génère' and resource 'exemple de commande curl' are specific, and it is distinct from sibling tools like executeEndpoint or listEndpoints.

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 implies usage: if you need a curl example for an endpoint, use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like executeEndpoint, or any exclusions. The context is implied but not clearly contrasted with sibling tools.

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