HTTP Request

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns 'status, headers and body' and is for raw HTTP requests. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like redirects, timeout, error handling, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps beyond what annotations provide.

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 efficiently structured: one opening sentence, a clear Args list, a Returns section, and an example. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundant information.

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 4 params, no output schema, and openWorldHint, the description covers purpose, parameters with examples, and return format. It lacks detail on error responses, timeouts, or rate limits, but is otherwise complete for an API request tool.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by providing parameter examples (e.g., headers: { 'Authorization': 'Bearer ...' }) and clarifying body format ('send JSON as a stringified object'). This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Make a raw HTTP request to any API and return status, headers and body,' clearly indicating the tool's verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like fetch_url by emphasizing 'raw' and supporting multiple HTTP methods, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 clear usage context: 'Use for REST/JSON APIs that need GET/POST/PUT/DELETE with custom headers or a body.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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