infomaniak_api_call

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'GET runs immediately. POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE follow the two-phase commit pattern.' It also discloses the /proxy/ endpoint restriction. This is meaningful behavioral information not present in the annotations.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the most critical information (escape hatch, target API, when to use). Every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, usage boundary, and method-specific behavior with no filler or redundancy.

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 generic escape hatch with no dedicated schema descriptions. The description covers purpose, usage boundaries, and key behavioral differences (immediate GET vs. two-phase commit). It does not explain the two-phase commit process in detail, but the output schema and annotations provide additional context. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a generic API call tool, with minor gaps around parameter construction and explicit destructive operation warnings.

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 the description must compensate. It does not explain the path, body, query, or confirmation_token parameters in any detail. The only parameter-related hint is that non-GET methods use a two-phase commit pattern, implying the need for confirmation_token. The description does not clarify the structure of body/query or the expected path format, leaving a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 ANY Infomaniak public API endpoint (api.infomaniak.com) when no dedicated tool exists.' It uses a specific verb ('call'), identifies the resource (Infomaniak public API), and distinguishes itself from the many typed sibling tools by explicitly positioning itself as an escape hatch.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'when no dedicated tool exists.' It also states an exclusion and an alternative: 'Manager-private (/proxy/...) endpoints are NOT reachable through this tool — use a typed tool instead.' Additionally, it differentiates behavior by method (GET vs. POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE), offering clear usage context.

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