explore_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'authenticated request' and that the base URL is set, but lacks details on authentication method, rate limits, error handling, or response format. It provides some context but remains vague on behavioral specifics.

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, combining a short prose statement with an Args list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section could be slightly more structured, but overall it is efficient with no wasted words.

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 tool has 4 parameters (2 required), no enums, and an output schema exists. The description adequately covers the basic operation but lacks details on return values, error scenarios, and authentication specifics. It is minimally complete for a probing tool but has gaps.

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 the description must add value. The docstring lists each parameter (method, path, body, params) with brief explanations. For path, it gives an example. However, the descriptions are mostly rephrasing schema names and types, adding minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Make a raw authenticated request' and identifies the resource as 'any EARLY API endpoint'. It clearly states its purpose to probe undocumented or newly discovered endpoints, distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely handle specific documented endpoints.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to probe undocumented or newly discovered endpoints', providing clear context. It also mentions that the base URL is already set. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the contrast with sibling tools implies that for known endpoints, other tools are preferable.

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