http_request

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses concrete behaviors: supported methods, no redirects, no credential forwarding, possible side effects even for GET, startup opt-in for other methods, and untrusted response content. This adds substantial operational context and does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each of its five sentences adds a distinct behavioral or scoping fact, with no filler or repetition.

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 mutating network tool with no output schema, it covers scope, enabled methods, side-effect risk, auth behavior, redirects, and untrusted output. The only notable gap is that the schema enum includes POST, PUT, PATCH, and DELETE while the description says enabled methods are GET, HEAD, and OPTIONS; the startup opt-in note mitigates this, but the relationship is not fully explicit.

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 compensate. It clarifies the meaning of method, body, and headers, and implies that url is the target endpoint. However, it does not explain timeoutMs semantics or the maximum-length constraints, though those are partly visible in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Tests') and a precise resource ('explicitly requested HTTP endpoints within the user-configured network scope'). It clearly identifies this as a network-request tool, which is distinct from the sibling tools that inspect git status, databases, processes, ports, and logs.

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?

It states when the tool is appropriate (explicitly requested endpoints in scope), which methods are enabled, and that other methods require startup opt-in. It also gives exclusions: no redirect following and no discovered credentials. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but none of the siblings are network-request tools, so the guidance is sufficient.

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