Call any WellSaid endpoint (advanced)

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

Adds useful behavior beyond annotations: authenticated requests, JSON responses as text, binary responses saved to disk with save_as. This complements the openWorldHint annotation by describing concrete response handling, though it doesn't cover all edge cases.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then response handling. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 description covers the core behavior and response handling, but with 7 parameters and no output schema, it lacks details on error handling, authentication specifics, and the role of output_dir. It's adequate for an advanced escape hatch but has clear gaps.

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 86%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds context about save_as for binary saving, but leaves output_dir undocumented in both schema and description. Overall, it offers some added value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Description clearly identifies it as an escape hatch for endpoints without a dedicated tool, distinguishing it from siblings. The specific verb 'makes an authenticated request' plus 'any path under the API base' defines the scope precisely.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'for endpoints without a dedicated tool' (e.g. replacement libraries). This implies not using when a dedicated tool exists, providing clear guidance.

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