astrovisor_request

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions compact serialization and follow-up retrieval by resultId, but does not explain side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior. Major gaps for a mutation-capable tool.

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 focused sentences with no fluff. First sentence captures primary purpose; second adds key features. Could benefit from brief usage note but remains 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?

Given tool complexity (7 parameters, nested response options, no output schema), description is too brief. Does not explain response format, pagination, or how to combine operationId with path/method. Leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 high (86%), so baseline is 3. Description adds context about compact serialization and resultId retrieval, but does not detail parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Adequate but not enhancing.

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 the tool calls any AstroVisor API operation by operationId, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like astrovisor_openapi_search (search) and astrovisor_result_get (retrieval) as the generic gateway.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description implies general-purpose use but does not state preferred alternatives for common operations (e.g., use astrovisor_openapi_get for specific endpoints). Use case is implied but not clarified.

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