request_generic_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses important traits: do not guess data, require confirmation for deletions, and provide app links in responses. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or error handling, but the provided rules are substantial and relevant.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, bullet-point rules, and an Args list. It is not overly verbose; each section serves a purpose. The rules section is somewhat lengthy but all are relevant behavioral guidelines.

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 generic fallback tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core operations, safety rules, and return type. It does not explain error handling or path construction details, but given the availability of specialized sibling tools, the completeness is adequate for the intended role.

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% at the tool level, but the Args section adds meaning: 'method: HTTP method (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE)', 'path: Resource path', 'body: Optional JSON data for POST/PUT requests'. This compensates for the schema's lack of top-level description and clarifies parameter usage, though it could be more detailed (e.g., path format).

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 verb and resource: 'Makes an HTTP request to the FHIR server' and 'perform CRUD operations on any FHIR resource'. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings with 'ONLY if the other tools are not applicable', making it a specific generic fallback tool.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool ... ONLY if the other tools are not applicable.' It also provides operational rules for create/update/delete (e.g., 'When deleting a resource, ask the user for confirmation') that clarify acceptable usage contexts.

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