crpt_get_raw

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

The description discloses the return JSON envelope, notes that body requests are rare but possible on reads, and lists host override behavior. It complements the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradiction, adding concrete behavioral detail.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers target API, safety, and parameters in a compact, logically ordered list. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, open-world path access) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all invocation details, return format, error envelope, and safety constraints. An agent can call it correctly without further inference.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains each parameter: path must start with '/', method defaults to GET, host overrides the default, query holds query-string parameters, and body is a rare JSON request body. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read ANY endpoint by path', and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling write and delete tools by naming crpt_write_raw and crpt_delete_raw. It also names the target API, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states which verbs are safe (GET, HEAD, OPTIONS) and directs the agent to use crpt_write_raw for data changes and crpt_delete_raw for deletions. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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