rew_request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds nothing behavioral: it never warns that an arbitrary method/path can destroy data (DELETE is in the enum), says nothing about authentication, permissions, or what happens on failure. For an unrestricted passthrough, that silence is a real gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the prerequisite lookup step. No filler, though the extreme brevity leaves room the tool's complexity actually needs.

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?

A 7-parameter, destructive, open-ended passthrough with zero schema documentation and no output schema needs far more than two sentences. Missing coverage of the wait/wait_timeout/progress_path polling model and the body/query structure leaves an agent unable to call it reliably.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It references 'method/path' only conceptually and says nothing about body, query, wait, wait_timeout, or progress_path – leaving the async/polling semantics entirely undocumented.

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 names a concrete action and resource ('Call any documented REW method/path') and scopes it to 'operations without dedicated tools,' which lets an agent distinguish it from the purpose-specific siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a preferred alternative, but the fallback role is clear.

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?

It gives actionable context: use rew_search_api and rew_describe_api to obtain exact schemas before calling, and implies this is the fallback for operations that lack a dedicated tool. It does not state an explicit exclusion ('do not use when a dedicated tool exists'), which keeps it from a 5.

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