Raw GET on the GLPI API

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses genuinely useful behaviour the annotations cannot: paths are relative to the API root, two different API generations exist with different path shapes, and glpi_server_info tells you which one applies. Error handling and response shape remain undisclosed.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core concept before the examples. Every clause carries information an agent needs — the escape-hatch framing, the path grammar for both API modes, and the pointer to the discovery tool.

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 two-parameter open-world passthrough with no output schema, this covers the essential unknowns: how to construct the path and how to learn which API is live. It does not mention pagination on 'search' endpoints or what a failure returns, which are the main remaining gaps for arbitrary-endpoint calls.

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 50% and the undocumented parameter is the important one — 'path' has no schema description at all. The description compensates well with concrete path examples for both legacy ('Ticket/12/Document_Item', 'search/Computer', 'listSearchOptions/Ticket') and high-level ('Assets/Computer/5', 'Administration/User/Me') forms, and shows the query shape as {criteria: [...]}.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — a raw, read-only GET against any endpoint of whichever GLPI API is active, relative to its root — and frames the tool as an 'escape hatch', which immediately separates it from the curated siblings like glpi_get_item or glpi_search_items.

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 phrase 'escape hatch' plus the instruction to call glpi_server_info first makes the when-to-use condition explicit: reach for this only when no high-level tool covers the endpoint, and confirm which API flavour is active before building a path. It stops short of naming the specific sibling to prefer for common cases (e.g. 'for tickets use glpi_get_ticket'), which keeps it at 4.

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