ojs_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses read-only behavior without OJS_ALLOW_WRITES, and notes that it does not enforce field lists from edit_publication_metadata. It also gives the path convention. It does not describe return format or error handling, but for a generic API caller that is likely acceptable.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose. The write-safeguard paragraph adds important behavioral context. A few lines, 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?

For a generic endpoint caller, the description covers path, journal, write restrictions, and the endpoints resource. It lacks return format, but that varies by endpoint. It is reasonably complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains `path` (relative to api/v1, with example) and `journal` (index for site-level). It doesn't explain `method`, `body`, or `params` explicitly, though method is implied by the read/write discussion. Partial coverage.

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?

States a clear verb 'call' and a resource 'any OJS REST API endpoint' and explicitly says 'outside the ready-made tools,' distinguishing it from sibling tools. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'outside the ready-made tools' and points to the `ojs://endpoints` resource for available endpoints. Also clarifies journal='index' for site-level. Does not list specific sibling alternatives but the condition is clear.

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