http_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies network requests and file saving but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, timeout behavior, error handling, or side effects (e.g., file overwriting). The savePath parameter's description partly addresses file saving, but overall transparency is poor.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action. However, it is too brief and lacks structure; for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, a slightly longer description with clear sections would be better. Still, 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 5 parameters, low schema coverage (20%), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., response body, status code, or saved file path), how to handle errors, or any constraints like maximum request size. A tool of this complexity requires much more information.

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 only 20% (only savePath has a description). The tool description does not add any meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. It does not explain the url format, method enums, body structure, or headers usage, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 'Initiate HTTP request or download file' clearly states the tool's verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like session_read which likely handle internal session data, and run_command which executes shell commands. However, it could be more specific about the type of HTTP requests (e.g., REST APIs) and the context (e.g., external web servers).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, when to use http_request vs run_command for fetching data, or when to avoid it (e.g., for local file operations). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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