tie_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: refusal of absolute URLs for security, the --allow-writes requirement for non-GET, credential endpoint blocking, and the return type (parsed JSON). Missing details like error handling or rate limits, but the security constraints add meaningful transparency.

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 efficiently structured with a clear lead sentence, security context, parameter list, and return type. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, and the formatting makes it easy to scan.

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 raw API caller with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, parameters, and return type adequately. It could be more complete by mentioning error/status handling or authentication nuances, but the provided information is solid for typical use.

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?

Even though the schema has 0% description coverage, the description's Args section fully explains each parameter. It clarifies the method enum, gives concrete path examples ('/api/directories' or '/api/attacks/123'), and defines params and body as optional dicts with usage notes. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 'Make a direct HTTP call to any Tenable Identity Exposure API endpoint' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this generic raw API caller from sibling tools that wrap specific endpoints.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use this tool (for any endpoint, especially those not covered by dedicated tools) and explicitly lists constraints (server-relative paths only, --allow-writes for non-GET, credential endpoints refused). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say 'use this when no other tool applies'.

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