skool_request

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

It discloses useful behavioral details: the request is authenticated, and cookies and User-Agent are injected automatically. However, it does not mention side effects of DELETE/PUT/PATCH, error behavior, response format, or any limits. Without annotations, the description carries a fairly heavy burden and only partially covers it.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the automatic authentication behavior is stated in a separate clear sentence. It is appropriately scoped for a generic request tool.

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?

The schema makes the request constructible, and the description explains its purpose and authentication behavior. However, with no output schema and no guidance on when to use this tool versus the specialized siblings, the description is minimally sufficient but not fully 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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. This is exactly the baseline case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Make an arbitrary authenticated HTTP request') and the resource ('any Skool URL'). It differentiates itself from the specialized sibling tools by emphasizing its general-purpose nature and explicitly mentions API discovery and debugging.

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 gives a clear use case ('API discovery and debugging') but does not explicitly say when to prefer it over specialized siblings or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than stated with dosage or alternatives.

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