feegow_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the write requirement for non-GET methods and the path construction. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits like error handling, response format, or rate limits.

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, no fluff. Essential information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 generic nature and lack of output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage condition, and path construction. It could mention that the response mirrors the API's response, but overall it's sufficient for a fallback tool.

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 covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (method and path). Description adds context for path (relative, example) and method (write constraint). But body and query parameters are not explained beyond schema, so the description adds moderate value.

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's a generic call to any Feegow API endpoint when no specific tool exists. It uses the verb 'Chamada genérica' (generic call) and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by indicating it's a fallback.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use (when no specific tool) and a key constraint: methods different from GET require FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true. This helps the agent decide and configure correctly.

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