HTTP API Call (browser session)

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

The description details behavioral traits: uses browser's cookies and TLS fingerprint, bypasses auth and fingerprinting, and notes that body is auto-encoded for dict/list. Annotations only include openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the burden. It does not mention rate limits or potential side effects, but covers key aspects adequately.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-paragraph overview followed by an Args list and Returns line. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose, and easy to scan.

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 6 parameters, 2 required, and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains all parameters, the return format (status, status_text, headers, body, url), and context for using the session. The output schema likely provides further detail, so description need not elaborate.

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%, so the description compensates fully. It explains each parameter: method lists, url, headers, body (auto-encoding for dict/list, as-is for string), use_session (purpose), and timeout_ms (default). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Make an HTTP request using the active account's browser session.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gv_open_url (navigation) and gv_eval_js (JavaScript execution) by specifying that it uses cookies and TLS fingerprint, and is faster for API data retrieval.

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 when to use the tool: when you need API data using the browser's session, bypassing cookie-based auth and TLS fingerprinting. It compares to navigating a page and highlights the speed advantage. It also allows turning off session via use_session. However, it could be more explicit about when not to use or list alternatives.

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