api_request

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

The description highlights that the authentication bearer never leaves the CLI, which is a security-related behavioral trait. It also states the return format as {status, headers, body} or error envelope. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like rate limits, request timeouts, or idempotency semantics that might be relevant for a generic API request 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?

The description is brief at two sentences, with the core action stated first. Every piece of information serves a purpose, and there is no fluff or repetition. It efficiently conveys the essential elements.

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 tool has five parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview: it specifies the API target, authentication, and return shape. However, it lacks details about potential errors, parameter constraints (e.g., path format, allowed body types), and usage context within the servonaut.dev ecosystem. The return format description partially compensates for the missing output schema.

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?

All five parameters are described in the schema with their descriptions, so the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond saying it's an 'authenticated request'. For example, it doesn't elaborate on how the 'path' relates to endpoints or how 'body' should be structured. The return format description is helpful but not directly about parameters.

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 action ('Make an authenticated request'), the target ('servonaut.dev REST API'), and the authentication method. It also specifies the return format, providing a clear understanding of the tool's function. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like 'aws_call' or 'get_server_info'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives from the sibling list. It does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferred or when to use other tools that might target different APIs. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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