wb_get_raw

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces the read-only constraint by listing safe verbs. It adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns a JSON envelope {'ok': true, 'status', 'data'} or an error envelope, and notes that some read APIs expect a body. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose and scope appear in the first sentence, followed by the API reference link, safety constraints, sibling routing, and a terse parameter list. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 raw-path tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details: path format, method restrictions, host override, query, body, and return envelope. It could mention error behavior in slightly more detail, but the error envelope reference and the output schema cover the main gaps.

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 explains each parameter: path is a full path beginning with '/', method is a safe verb defaulting to GET, host overrides the default, query is query-string parameters, and body is a JSON request body rare on reads. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('ANY endpoint by path'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from catalog-based tools by noting it covers endpoints 'missing from the catalog'. It also names sibling tools wb_write_raw and wb_delete_raw for mutation, making its read-only scope 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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool ('Read ANY endpoint by path, including ones missing from the catalog') and when not to ('To change data use wb_write_raw, to delete use wb_delete_raw'). It also restricts to safe verbs (GET, HEAD, OPTIONS), giving clear selection criteria among siblings.

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