api-connector

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool makes HTTP requests, returns status/headers/body, and supports retries and configurable timeouts. However, it does not specify error handling, redirect behavior, response size limits, or security implications, which are significant for a generic HTTP client.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only relevant details about features and return values. Every clause conveys necessary information without 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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value as status, headers, and body, and mentions the core features. However, it does not specify the response object structure or error behaviors, leaving some context gaps that the schema does not cover.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it merely references 'custom headers, JSON body, retry, and configurable timeout' which already exist in the schema. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 explicitly states 'Make HTTP requests to any REST API' with a clear verb and resource, and lists key capabilities (custom headers, JSON body, retry, timeout) that differentiate it from sibling tools like database-query and file_read. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's primary function.

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 implies usage for making HTTP requests to external REST APIs, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like webhook_send or database-query. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations, so it only provides an implicit usage context.

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