raw_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It labels the tool as an 'escape hatch' implying low-level access, but does not disclose potential risks such as undefined behavior from invalid actions, error handling, or the need for deep knowledge of AnkiConnect's API. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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?

Two sentences, extremely concise, with no fluff. Key information is front-loaded: tool purpose, usage condition, and parameter format. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description could be more complete. It mentions the need for exact keys but does not cover return values, error behavior, or potential side effects. It is adequate for a simple escape hatch but leaves room for improvement.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: 'action' is the AnkiConnect action name, and 'params' are the raw parameters for that action, with note that keys must match exactly. This compensates well for the lack of schema description.

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 it is an 'escape hatch' to call ANY AnkiConnect action by name, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'Use only when no dedicated tool covers what you need.' This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use ('only when no dedicated tool covers what you need'), gives an example (brand-new action), and instructs on parameter format ('params must match AnkiConnect's exact keys'). This is excellent usage guidance.

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