yeswehack_api_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself establishes read-only behavior and authentication requirements. It could add details about error behavior or rate limits, but the core safety-relevant disclosure (read-only GET escape hatch) is present.

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 information is front-loaded with purpose, then usage context, then a compact Args section. Every sentence contributes either purpose, selection criteria, or parameter meaning; no filler.

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 is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters. Minor gaps like URL construction, pagination, and error handling are not addressed, but they are secondary for a raw read-only API escape hatch. Slightly stronger than baseline due to the explicit auth and relative-path constraints.

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 descriptions are 0% covered, but the description compensates fully: path is described as a relative API path starting with '/', and params_json as an optional JSON object of query parameters. This is exactly the additional meaning an agent needs beyond the raw 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Read'), a resource ('authenticated YesWeHack API endpoint'), and the tool's role as an escape hatch for unwrapped endpoints. This clearly separates it from the sibling wrapped tools like list_programs/get_program.

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?

Explicitly says to use it for API coverage gaps and endpoints that are not wrapped yet, which tells an agent when to choose it over the sibling wrappers. It also constrains the path to a relative API path beginning with '/', with examples.

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