api_request

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

The description discloses authentication details (OAuth bearer, bearer never leaves CLI) and the response envelope format ({status, headers, body} or error). It also notes header restrictions. However, it does not mention potential side effects of mutating methods (POST/PUT/DELETE) or rate limits.

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 extremely concise with two sentences and a return type summary. It front-loads the core action and purpose, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the straightforward nature of the tool (generic API request) and the complete parameter schema, the description covers return structure and authentication adequately. No output schema is needed as the return format is clearly described.

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 provides complete descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The description offers no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 makes authenticated requests to the servonaut.dev REST API, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target AWS, databases, or other services. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other generic API tools like 'aws_call' or 'mcp_tool_call'.

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 implies usage for interacting with the servonaut.dev REST API, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aws_call' or 'run_command'. No when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned.

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