raw_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not disclose authentication/permission requirements, rate limits, error response behavior, or that POST/PUT/DELETE methods cause mutations. For a tool capable of arbitrary destructive calls, this is a significant gap.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and parameter semantics in a compact args block. No filler sentences.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description only covers argument meaning. It omits the behavioral context (auth, side effects, return/error shape) that an agent needs to invoke an arbitrary-endpoint tool safely, so it is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates allowed HTTP methods and gives concrete endpoint examples and the intended meaning of params and body. It stops short of specifying body/params encoding details per method, but adds real meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource: make a raw HTTP request to an AttackForge SSAPI endpoint. It is clear this is a generic/escape-hatch tool, but the description never contrasts it with the domain-specific siblings (vulnerabilities, projects, etc.), leaving the agent to infer that this is the fallback when no wrapper exists.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when this is preferable to the dedicated sibling tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent has to guess that raw_request is the last resort rather than the default.

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