request_send

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions 'using mitmproxy's built-in replay.client' but does not explain side effects (e.g., that it actually sends a live HTTP request, modifies state, or requires specific permissions). No warnings about potential rate limits or destructive actions are given.

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 short and to the point, but it could be more structured. It uses one sentence and does not waste words, but it lacks a clear breakdown of tool purpose, usage, or parameters. It is adequate but not optimal.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (5 parameters, no schema coverage, and a boolean output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the boolean return value (e.g., success/failure), nor does it provide context about the 'replay.client' mechanism or any prerequisites. The presence of an output schema mitigates some need for return value explanation, but overall completeness is low.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the role of 'method', 'url', 'headers', 'body', or 'body_encoding'. The schema provides basic types and titles, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Send a new HTTP request') and the resource ('new HTTP request'), and it implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'flow_replay' which replays existing flows. The verb 'Send' and object 'new HTTP request' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., flow_replay for replaying captured flows, flow_create for creating flows from scratch). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring the mitmproxy proxy to be running, or when not to use it.

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