fazer_requisicao_http

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 only states the action (custom HTTP request) and use cases, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., POST/PUT can modify data), authentication requirements, or response structure. This is a significant gap for a tool that can send arbitrary HTTP methods.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by usage examples. Every word contributes value; no fluff or repetition. The structure is efficient and immediately scannable.

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 tool with 6 parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for why it exists and when to use it, but misses important context about safety, limitations, and how it fits with sibling tools. The output schema covers return values, but behavioral context (e.g., potential to mutate data) is absent. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions and examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline 3. It does not enhance or clarify parameter behavior beyond what is already documented.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Faz requisição HTTP customizada' (makes custom HTTP request) and enumerates specific use cases (check content, headers, test payloads). It distinguishes from specialized siblings by emphasizing 'customizada' and 'verificação de evidências', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 lists three usage scenarios: confirming exposed files (.env, phpinfo.php, backups), inspecting endpoint responses, and sending manual payloads during evidence verification. It gives concrete contexts but does not mention exclusions or compare with alternative tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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