curl

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint is false, implying possible side effects (e.g., POST/PUT modifications), but the description adds no behavioral context. There is no mention of authentication needs, rate limits, data transformation, or what happens on errors. The description merely states the operation without elaborating on impact.

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 very short—one sentence plus an example—and front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words and communicates the essential information efficiently. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 tool lacks an output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., status code, response body, headers). For an HTTP client, the response format is crucial. While parameters are well-documented, the lack of output information leaves a significant gap, especially since the tool can produce complex results.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (url, method, headers, body). The description adds only a generic example, not additional semantic detail. Since schema already explains parameters, the description does not significantly enhance understanding; the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: making HTTP requests to web endpoints. It provides a concrete example (GET and POST), and the name 'curl' is widely recognized as an HTTP client. Among siblings (dig, ping, nslookup, etc.), this tool is unique for HTTP requests, making its purpose distinguishable.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios where curl is appropriate or inappropriate, nor does it reference any sibling tools that might be better suited for specific tasks (e.g., dig for DNS, ping for ICMP). The agent receives no context for selecting this tool over others.

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