sleeper_api

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and only partially does so. It discloses that auth is handled via a captured token and runs in the background, but says nothing about whether requests can mutate server state (method/body are accepted), permission prerequisites, rate limits, or failure/return behavior — significant gaps for a request-issuing tool.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical is slightly cryptic but the definition is tight and well-organized, if perhaps too sparse.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits method semantics, mutation risk, and any indication of what the call returns, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 only 25% — only 'profile' is documented. The description mentions the captured auth token but adds no meaning for the undocumented url, body, or method parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Call page backend API') and adds a useful qualifier about the captured auth token and background execution mode. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from likely siblings such as sleeper_exec or sleeper_network that could also issue requests.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The '(background fetch)' parenthetical hints at a usage mode but never states when an agent should pick this over sleeper_exec or the network/wait tools, leaving the choice to inference.

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