tie_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only describes the basic function and parameters, omitting critical details like authentication, error handling, rate limits, and side effects. This is insufficient for a generic API call tool.

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 extremely concise, using a structured Args/Returns format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. 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 13 sibling tools for specific endpoints, the description lacks guidance on when to use this generic tool. It explains the return value (parsed JSON) but omits potential errors or pagination behavior. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description adds meaningful context to all four parameters (method, path, params, body) with clear explanations and examples, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. However, it could provide more detail on path formatting.

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's purpose: making direct HTTP calls to any Tenable Identity Exposure API endpoint. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is easily distinguishable from sibling tools which target specific endpoints.

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 any endpoint but does not explicitly guide when to use this generic tool versus the dedicated sibling tools (e.g., tie_alerts, tie_attacks). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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