custom_api_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Use with care' hints at risk, but it does not state whether requests can be destructive, require authentication, are rate-limited, or what the response format is. Given the generic and potentially powerful nature of this tool, the lack of concrete behavioral details is a significant gap.

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 one concise sentence, front-loading the main purpose and ending with a caution. It is appropriately sized for a generic tool, though it is arguably too brief given the lack of context. No wasted words, but additional useful information would not hurt.

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?

Despite having an output schema and full parameter schema coverage, the description is incomplete for a tool of this nature. It lacks guidance on when to use it, potential pitfalls, authentication needs, or how it relates to the many specific sibling tools. The 'Use with care' warning is insufficient for a raw API request tool with no annotations.

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 covers all three parameters (path, method, payload) with descriptions, including a required path, default method, and payload format. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but as schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The schema itself is self-explanatory.

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 action ('Make a custom API request to the controller') and distinguishes this from the many specific list/stat sibling tools. The term 'custom' implies a generic fallback, which is further supported by the parameter schema allowing arbitrary path/method/payload. However, it does not explicitly define what endpoints are reachable, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the extensive list of specific sibling tools (e.g., list_health, stat_sysinfo). 'Use with care' is a warning, not usage direction. There is no mention of preferring specific tools, prerequisites, or scenarios where this custom request is appropriate.

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