http_request

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

Annotations only give readOnly=false/openWorld=true/destructive=false; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the registered-host anti-exfiltration guard, response-body secret scrubbing, placeholder substitution rules, and auth-mode selection heuristics. This is exactly the security/behavior detail an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then dense supporting detail with no obvious filler. Slightly terse/run-on in the auth and placeholder clauses, but every sentence carries information.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations covering permissions, the description covers behavior (scrubbing, host guard, substitution) but omits meaning of several params and any return-shape note. Adequate but with clear 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?

With 0% schema coverage across 11 params, the description compensates well for `auth` (enumerating auto/basic/bearer/none/header/query with Jenkins/bearer nuance) and for placeholder use in url/headers/body, but `ref`, `method`, `timeout`, `json`, `allow_any_host`, and `follow_redirects` are left unexplained in both schema and 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Make an HTTP request authenticated with a stored credential, without exposing the secret.' This clearly distinguishes it from credential-management siblings and from run_with_credential, since the mechanism (authenticated HTTP call) is explicit.

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 explains how auth modes behave and the host allowlist guard, which implicitly tells the agent how to use it, but it never states when to choose this tool over run_with_credential or other siblings, nor any when-not conditions. Usage is only implied.

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