verify.assert_api_response

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes a [network][risk:network] warning and states it calls an API, but it does not explain possible side effects of non-GET methods, authentication needs, or failure behavior.

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 focused sentence with a useful risk tag front-loaded. Every word earns its place and no unnecessary detail is 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?

This is a network-capable tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description does not explain return values, default method, request body semantics, or potential side effects. The context is too thin for safe autonomous invocation.

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 0%, but most parameter names are self-explanatory. The description adds meaning for expectedStatus and bodyContains via 'assert status and optional body substrings', but leaves body, method, headers, and timeoutMs semantics to inference.

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 states a specific verb and resource: call an API and assert its status and optional body substrings. It clearly distinguishes this from UI/SQLite/screenshot assertion tools in the sibling list.

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 this tool is for verifying backend HTTP/API responses rather than UI state, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternative tools.

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