get_info

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it performs an HTTP GET request, returns a parsed JSON dictionary on success, or an empty dictionary on failure, and logs errors. This covers key behavioral traits including success and failure modes. It could mention redirect handling or timeout, but is sufficiently transparent for the tool's simplicity.

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 with clearly separated sections for the main action, parameters, returns, and error handling. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first line, making it immediately clear to an agent.

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 simple HTTP GET tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, its input, its output structure, and error behavior. No additional context is necessary for an agent to correctly invoke it, and the presence of an output schema (though not shown) further supports completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the tool description provides the param 'url (str): The URL to send the GET request to.' This adds context beyond the schema's type alone, specifying it is the target of an HTTP GET. It clarifies the purpose of the parameter, which is essential since schema alone does not explain it.

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 tool fetches information from a specified URL using an HTTP GET request. The verb 'fetches' and resource 'URL' are specific. Among siblings which are mostly GitHub-specific, this tool is clearly generic HTTP GET, distinguishing it from get_ipv4_info and get_ipv6_info which fetch from specific sources.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks information about appropriate contexts or exclusion scenarios. Sibling tools like get_ipv4_info or get_ipv6_info are not mentioned, so an agent has no criteria for selecting this tool over them.

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