Chamada Bruta à API Despezzas

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true. The description adds that GET is safe and that destructive methods require the allow_destructive flag, providing a clear safety protocol beyond the annotation.

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, no wasted words. First sentence defines purpose, second sets safety rules. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool is a raw API with complex parameters; description is minimal. While it covers safety and purpose, it lacks guidance on output, errors, or parameter usage. Adequate for an emergency exit, but could be more complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning for most parameters (path, body, query, allow_destructive). It only mentions method and allow_destructive in general terms, leaving path, body, and query unexplained.

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 it is an 'emergency exit for endpoints discovered later', indicating a raw API fallback. It mentions allowed methods, but the resource is vague ('endpoints'), so it's not fully specific.

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 provides explicit context: use when no specific tool exists (emergency), and distinguishes safe GET from destructive methods requiring a flag. It does not list alternative tools but implies they are preferred.

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