Call Horoshop API

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It fails to mention authentication needs, potential mutation effects, rate limits, error handling, or response format. A generic 'calls any function' gives no indication of safety, side effects, or required prerequisites, making it opaque for an agent.

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 a single sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary words. It conveys the essential purpose without padding, achieving high conciseness.

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 API caller with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks information about the set of available functions, authentication requirements, return values, error behavior, and relationship to sibling tools. The complexity of a dynamic API caller demands far more context than this one-liner provides.

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 schema has two parameters (function_name and params) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds minimal value beyond labeling parameters as 'arbitrary JSON parameters.' It does not explicitly explain that function_name is the API method name or that params are the arguments, leaving interpretation to inference. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 states the tool's function clearly: 'Calls any Horoshop API function with arbitrary JSON parameters.' It identifies the verb (calls), resource (Horoshop API functions), and scope (any, arbitrary). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific endpoints, though it could better emphasize its role as a generic/low-level 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the specific sibling tools (e.g., horoshop_get_order, horoshop_update_order_status). The description does not mention that this is a general-purpose tool for functions not covered by dedicated wrappers, nor does it give any context for when it should be preferred or avoided.

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