cml_api

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: re-authenticates and retries on 401, raises on non-2xx, returns raw body text, expects JSON body. However, it does not cover rate limits or authentication details beyond re-auth.

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?

Description is reasonably concise with a clear first line, then Args section. Every sentence adds value, but slight redundancy ('Returns the raw response body as text' is repeated). Could be slightly more front-loaded.

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?

Given output schema exists, description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers method, path, body, auth retry, and error handling. For a generic API call, this is sufficiently complete, though pagination or response format details are missing.

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 compensates fully. It explains method (HTTP verbs), path (after /api/v0, must start with '/'), and body (optional JSON, Content-Type set). Adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 for authenticated CML2 REST calls, specifying method, path, and body. It implies direct API access but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling cml_openapi, lacking explicit sibling distinction.

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?

Provides clear context for making authenticated REST calls to CML2 but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (like cml_openapi) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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