works_api_call

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the base URL and the confirm flag for non-GET, but fails to describe side effects, authentication, error behavior, rate limits, or response format. For a tool that can perform arbitrary mutations, this is a significant omission, leaving the agent under-informed about the tool's full behavior.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It is concise and every sentence adds value. However, it is perhaps too terse, lacking details that could be added without undermining conciseness. Still, structure is clean and efficient.

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 is a generic raw API caller with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only provides a base path and a confirm requirement. It omits crucial operational details like how to construct endpoints, expected response format, error handling, and when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. This is inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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 clarify parameters. It provides limited context for 'path' (relative to the base URL) and 'confirm' (needed for non-GET), but does not explain 'method', 'body_json', or 'user'. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool where the schema itself has no descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a raw API escape hatch for the WORKS API, with a specific base URL. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are purpose-built for specific operations (e.g., works_drive_get, works_files_list) and makes the tool's role obvious.

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 'escape hatch' wording implies the tool is a fallback for when specific siblings don't cover an operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives. The confirm=true requirement for non-GET requests provides some usage guidance, but no exclusions or alternative references are given.

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