strapi_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'authenticated' without explaining which token is used or potential side effects. It doesn't mention response handling, rate limits, or error behavior. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that can perform any HTTP method.

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, first stating core function and second giving usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no fluff, making it extremely concise and front-loaded.

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?

As a generic request tool with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief to fully inform an agent. It lacks details on response format, error cases, and how auth tokens are resolved—critical for an arbitrary request tool. The sibling tools help bound its use, but the description itself remains thin.

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 coverage is only 40% (path and useAdminToken have descriptions), leaving body, query, and method without schema docs. The description adds minimal parameter semantics—only that the request is to Strapi and can target admin endpoints. It doesn't clarify how to construct body vs query or the effect of method.

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 this tool makes an arbitrary authenticated request to Strapi, positioning it as a general-purpose endpoint client. It distinguishes itself from siblings by targeting custom endpoints and admin/content-manager routes.

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 explicitly says to use this for custom endpoints and admin/content-manager endpoints, implying it is the fallback when specific CRUD tools don't apply. It doesn't explicitly exclude standard CRUD operations but the phrase 'custom' provides clear context.

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