aspro_call

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

The description details the return structure ({ status, ok, url, data }), mentions that api_key is added automatically, and notes that body is for POST operations only. This covers key behaviors, though rate limits or destructive nature are not mentioned. Given no annotations, this is good.

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 concise with three sentences: purpose, prerequisite, and parameter/return explanation. Every sentence adds value without repetition. Front-loaded with the key action.

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 complexity (generic API caller with 6 params, no output schema), the description fully equips the agent to use it correctly: it explains the mapping to REST concepts, return shape, and prerequisite. Nothing essential is missing.

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 50% description coverage; the description adds context to all parameters: explains how module/entity/method are used indirectly, and clarifies the roles of id, query, and body. It provides meaning beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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: 'Call an Aspro.Cloud endpoint.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the need to run aspro_describe first, setting it apart from other tools like aspro_describe, aspro_list_entities, etc.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Always run aspro_describe first to learn the parameter shape.' This instructs the agent on the prerequisite and also indirectly warns against calling without prior describe. No ambiguity.

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