send_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It states the tool issues an HTTP/1.1 request, does not open a Repeater tab, and returns the response. It also explains the mutation mode modifies a history entry. It does not cover potential side effects like rate limiting or authentication details, but the core behavior is clear.

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 concise and well-structured, with two usage modes clearly listed. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 description is mostly complete given the existence of an output schema (which explains return values). It covers parameters, modes, and behavior. However, it lacks examples or error handling info, and the page_size parameter is undocumented. For a complex tool with 10 parameters, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 9 of 10 parameters (history_id, url, method, path, set_headers, remove_headers, headers, body, inherit_from_history_id) but does not mention 'page_size', which has a default of 200 and likely controls response pagination. This is a minor 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Issue an HTTP/1.1 request via Burp (no Repeater tab) and return the response.' It specifies the exact function (sending a request) and distinguishes it from siblings like 'repeater_from_history' by noting it does not open a Repeater tab.

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 explicit guidance on two usage modes (mutate history entry or build from scratch) and when to use each. It mentions optional parameter inheritance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like Repeater or inspect_history_entry.

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