web_api_get

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses two important traits: no userId is added (web API uses childIds/organizationalUnitId) and returns status and body regardless of outcome. But it omits auth requirements, rate limits, error handling specifics, and mutation safety (though GET implies read-only). Adequate but incomplete for a raw API call 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?

Front-loads purpose, then provides concise parameter examples and key behavioral note. No wasted words; three short lines efficiently cover the essentials. Slightly terse but appropriate for a low-level API tool.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, as a raw GET tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify auth context (what credentials are used) and any rate limits or pagination. It covers parameter examples and one behavioral trait but leaves out important operational context.

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%, so description must compensate. It provides examples for both parameters ('/api/absences' for path, JSON object for params_json) and clarifies that no userId is automatically added. This adds meaningful syntax meaning beyond empty schema descriptions, but lacks detail on params_json format specifics or error cases.

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?

States a specific verb (GET) and resource (web-foreldreportalen API), and clarifies it is a raw GET for mapping new web endpoints. Distinguishes itself from api_get by being 'web' portal specific, though the distinction is somewhat implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Implies usage for 'kartlegging av nye web-endepunkter' (mapping new web endpoints), which suggests exploratory/discovery use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling api_get or state when not to use this tool. No prerequisites or alternatives named.

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