api_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (status, headers, body) and the baseUrl resolution behavior. It doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., POST/DELETE mutations) or error handling, but those are implied by the HTTP method and the tool's nature. It adds meaningful context beyond a bare 'sends an HTTP request' and is not misleading.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero filler. The primary action and return value are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is added in the second sentence without redundancy. It earns every word.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 2 required, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, this description is brief. It covers the essential purpose and usage, but omits parameter semantics, error behavior, and authentication prerequisites. However, given that HTTP semantics are widely understood, it is minimally sufficient for an agent to make a first call, but it leaves room for misunderstanding around query/body/header formats.

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 compensate. It only indirectly explains the 'url' parameter (relative to baseUrl) and does not explain 'body', 'query', 'headers', 'timeout', or 'method' beyond the enum. An agent would have to infer the meaning of these from HTTP conventions, which is not provided here. This is a significant gap given zero schema 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 states the verb ('Send'), the resource ('a single HTTP request to a web API'), and the outcome (returns status, headers and body). It also distinguishes itself from api_assert by naming the alternative explicitly, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this for one-off exploration; use api_assert when you also want pass/fail checks.' It also clarifies that relative URLs resolve against the baseUrl set by api_set_env, implying a prerequisite without explicitly stating it. This is strong when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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