http_request

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it works with internal network addresses (security implication) and returns status/headers/body/elapsed time. Missing traits: error handling, idempotency, rate limits, authentication, redirect behavior. Moderate transparency but gaps remain.

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?

Four concise sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose and methods, body options, scope, return values. No redundancy, front-loaded with essential information. Highly efficient.

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?

Covers methods, body options, and return structure. However, missing details on timeout_ms, max_bytes, error behavior, and security considerations (e.g., auth, rate limits). Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains body_json vs body and auto Content-Type setting, but does not describe parameters like url, method, headers, timeout_ms, max_bytes. Only 2 of 7 parameters are elaborated, insufficient given no schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it's a universal HTTP client performing various methods. It lists GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'fetch_text', which likely is a subset. The purpose is clear but sibling distinction is implicit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use body_json vs body for JSON APIs versus raw payloads. Mentions scope (remote, localhost, internal). However, no direct comparison with fetch_text or exclusions. The context is clear but alternative use cases are not fully addressed.

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