Raw Flarum API request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that non-GET methods are refused in read-only mode, but does not explain what read-only mode means, how it is determined, or any other behavioral aspects like authentication or rate limits. This partial disclosure is useful but incomplete.

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, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the purpose and quickly follow with key usage detail. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 complexity (4 parameters, including nested object for body) and no output schema, the description could be more complete. It explains the path relative to API root and hints at custom endpoints, but lacks details on response format, error handling, or the implications of read-only mode. The description is adequate for an escape hatch but not fully comprehensive.

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% description coverage for all parameters, including path, method, query, and body. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond examples like '/discussions' or '/fof/gamification/ranks', which is borderline but does not elevate the score above baseline 3.

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 an escape hatch for making arbitrary requests to any Flarum API endpoint, for anything not covered by typed tools. It explicitly mentions custom extension routes and non-JSON:API endpoints, distinguishing it from sibling tools like flarum_get, flarum_create, etc.

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 specifies when to use this tool (for any endpoint not covered by typed tools) and highlights a key constraint: in read-only mode, non-GET methods are refused. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the sibling tools list implies preference for typed tools.

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