hackerone_api_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state 'Read-only by design,' which is important safety-relevant context, and 'Raw GET' clarifies the operation. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error behavior, or response variability, which would matter for a raw API access tool.

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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core behavior, gives an example, and then states the usage restriction. Every part earns its place, with no padding or redundancy.

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-access tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, its safety profile, and when to use it instead of siblings. It is slightly thin on operational details like how errors are surfaced or whether the full HackerOne base URL is assumed, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly in most cases.

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 input schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds a useful example of the path format but does not meaningfully elaborate beyond what the schema provides for 'params'.

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 a specific verb (raw GET), the resource (any HackerOne API path), and provides an illustrative example (/hackers/programs). It also distinguishes itself from purpose-built sibling tools by explicitly framing itself as a generic fallback.

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 phrase 'use only when no purpose-built tool exists' is an explicit when-not-to-use instruction, directly guiding an agent away from the many sibling tools. This is ideal guidance for a generic fallback tool.

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