hh_get_raw

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds concrete behavioral detail: allowed verbs are GET/HEAD/OPTIONS, host defaults to the service default, and responses are wrapped in a JSON envelope. This adds meaningful context beyond the boolean hints, though it does not deeply discuss error or auth behavior.

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 tightly written: a one-sentence purpose, a target API reference, a safety rule with sibling routing, and a compact parameter list. There is no filler, and the most important usage constraint (safe verbs) appears early.

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 open-world read nature, the description covers the API target, allowed verbs, all parameter semantics, and the return envelope. It also notes that the body is sometimes needed even on reads, which is a non-obvious detail. An agent has sufficient information to invoke it correctly.

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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains all five parameters: path requires a leading '/', method defaults to GET, host is an override, query contains query-string parameters, and body is rarely needed. This fully compensates for the schema's bare titles.

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, including ones missing from the catalog.' It clearly distinguishes this raw read tool from catalog-based or mutation siblings by naming hh_write_raw and hh_delete_raw as the alternatives for changing/deleting data.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for read-only access to any endpoint by path, including uncataloged ones. It also provides direct routing guidance: 'To change data use hh_write_raw, to delete use hh_delete_raw,' and constrains usage to safe verbs only.

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