hamravesh_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses method permissions (GET always allowed, write methods require ALLOW_WRITE, DELETE requires ALLOW_DELETE). However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like rate limits, idempotency, error handling, or the raw response format. This is a minimal disclosure for a generic request tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and then specifying permission rules. Every sentence is essential and informative. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is a generic raw request endpoint with no output schema. The description should explain the response format, error handling, and potential side effects. It only covers permissions and references a file for paths. For a fallback tool, this is incomplete; the agent cannot understand what to expect from the response.

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?

The schema has 6 parameters with 67% description coverage (4 of 6 have descriptions). The description adds permission context for method but does not explain 'org', 'params', or 'headers' beyond what is in the schema. It states that 'body' is for write methods, which is implicit. Overall, the description adds marginal value over the 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: making raw requests to any Hamravesh endpoint not covered by dedicated tools. It uses a specific verb ('raw request to any endpoint') and distinguishes from siblings by limiting to tasks without dedicated tools.

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 the tool (tasks without dedicated tools) and specifies permission requirements for methods (GET always allowed, POST/PUT/PATCH require ALLOW_WRITE, DELETE requires ALLOW_DELETE). It references ENDPOINTS.md for the full path list. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if a dedicated tool exists, use that).

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