http_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'retrieve options,' implying a read operation, but it does not mention whether the request is stored, how redirects are handled, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description fails to disclose the behavior of the 11 parameters or the nature of the response, leaving significant uncertainty for a tool that makes network calls.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the action. It achieves clarity without verbosity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides no information about response format, error handling, authentication nuances, or the meaning of parameters like auth vs. basic_auth vs. bearer_auth. It is far too sparse to fully inform an agent about how to correctly invoke this tool and interpret its results, especially given the richness of the parameter set.

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 all parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation thoroughly.

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 verb (Make an HTTP OPTIONS request) and the resource (specified URL), and specifies the action as retrieving options. It is distinct from siblings by naming the HTTP method, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with GET/POST/etc., which is implicit in the tool name. The purpose is clear 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like http_get or http_post. It doesn't mention typical use cases for OPTIONS (e.g., CORS preflight) or when it would be preferable. There is no exclusion criteria or context for choosing this method, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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