sbis_get_raw

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description aligns by stating safe verbs and read-only purpose. It adds valuable context about the host override, query parameters, and the response envelope format, which are not fully covered by annotations. Since the description does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral details, a 4 is appropriate.

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 but information-dense, with clear sections for purpose, API reference, verb constraints, argument explanations, and return format. It front-loads the core purpose and distinguishes from siblings early. Every sentence contributes, with no fluff.

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 (raw access with 5 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the path, method, host, query, body, and return envelope/formats. It also addresses edge cases (missing catalog endpoints, body on reads) and provides the API reference for further context, making it fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining each parameter's purpose: path is the full path, method is the safe verb with GET default, host is an override, query is query-string parameters, and body is rare but possible. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be slightly more explicit about the format of 'query' (e.g., as an object vs string).

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 the tool reads ANY endpoint by path, explicitly including ones missing from the catalog. It specifies the target API and the safe verbs allowed, distinguishing it from sibling tools that write or delete. The mention of 'raw' and 'path' makes its role unmistakable.

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 to use sbis_write_raw for changes and sbis_delete_raw for deletions, providing clear exclusions and alternatives. It also specifies safe verbs (GET, HEAD, OPTIONS) and notes that some reads may require a body, guiding the agent on when and how to use the tool.

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