api_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that GET is non-mutating and that response text is truncated to 50KB, which are critical safety and limitation details. It could mention error behavior or authentication, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 succinct, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and three short, information-dense sentences total. Every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, safety, discovery, and a key limitation.

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 simplicity (one parameter, fully documented schema, and an output schema available), the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It explains scope, non-mutation, truncation, and how to discover endpoints, covering all necessary aspects without redundancy.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of the 'path' parameter, including examples and the allowance for query strings. The description adds the specific 'help' endpoint example, but this is also present in the schema, so it adds minimal value beyond the structured data.

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 is a read-only escape hatch for GET requests to any BigFix REST API path under /api/, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a generic low-level access point rather than a purpose-built endpoint.

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 context for when to use the tool: anytime a read-only GET request to the BigFix REST API is needed. It also gives a practical tip to use path 'help' for discovery. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which would warrant a 5.

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