Call any Midjourney web endpoint

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavior context: it is a raw GET that returns JSON, endpoints may change because Midjourney has no public API, and paths must start with /api/. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 key information is front-loaded in the first two sentences: what it does and when to use it. The second paragraph adds important context about endpoint instability and discovery, though the '/api/' constraint is repeated from the schema, making the description slightly less tight than it could be.

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?

With no output schema, 'return the JSON' gives a minimal but adequate description of the response expectation. The tool's dynamic nature, discovery method, and path constraint are covered, and the annotations handle the safety profile. It would be more complete with an explicit note about expected error behavior, but it is not missing anything critical for selection and 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both `path` and `query`. The description reinforces that paths are arbitrary and must start with /api/, but it does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Issue a GET against an arbitrary path on midjourney.com and return the JSON.' It also frames itself as 'the escape hatch for endpoints this server has no named tool for,' which clearly separates it from all the specific sibling tools.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when no named tool exists for the endpoint. It also explains the discovery workflow with `midjourney-cli capture` and enforces the `/api/` path constraint, giving an agent enough context to decide between this fallback and the other listed tools.

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