Web Request

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it only adds the allowlist and local-process context. It does not disclose error/blocked-host behavior, response format, redirect handling, or auth requirements beyond what the schema already states about blocked headers.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence is slightly circular ('web_request ... web_request paths'), but overall it is tight and appropriately sized.

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 tool with 5 parameters, a nested headers object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits what a response looks like and failure modes, though the rich schema partially compensates for the parameter side.

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 100%, so the schema already documents url, body, method, headers and timeoutMs with defaults and blocked-header rules. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource: calling an allowlisted HTTPS API from the local MCP process. It is specific about the mechanism and scope, though it does not distinguish itself from the many other protocol-calling siblings (e.g., call_protocol_tool, run_base_plugin_cli) beyond naming 'web_request paths'.

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 second sentence gives an implied usage condition ('for Base plugin web_request paths when the host is allowed'), which is more than nothing. However it names no alternative tools and gives no explicit when-not guidance, leaving the agent to infer when to prefer this over the other protocol invocation siblings.

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