request_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does substantial work: it discloses body truncation (cut to body_chars, hard cap 20000), that binary/base64 bodies are described rather than dumped, and that authorization, cookies, tokens and passwords are masked as <redacted:N> by default. It omits error behavior for a bad index/path and whether the operation is strictly read-only, but the masking and truncation disclosures are the behaviorally important ones.

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?

A single front-loaded paragraph opening with the core purpose, then a facet list and two constraint sentences. The enumeration is long but each item is a real capability the agent needs to know; no filler text or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. For a 4-parameter drill-down tool the description covers payload shape, truncation limits and redaction defaults well; the only real hole is the undocumented 'path' parameter and index-boundary behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains body_chars (truncation length, max 20000) and indirectly explains include_secrets (masking is the default). However, 'path' is never given meaning — presumably the HAR file path — and 'index' is only described as coming from sibling tools, leaving its addressing semantics implicit. Partial compensation, not full.

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 resource and scope: full detail for exactly one request, then enumerates the returned facets (URL, status, timings, sizes, cache state, initiator, redirect chain, params, headers, body preview). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming find_requests and slowest_requests as the sources of the index it consumes.

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?

Clear workflow context: this is the drill-down step after find_requests or slowest_requests, which tells the agent when to reach for it. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g. 'use har_overview for aggregate stats instead') or what happens with an out-of-range index, so it is strong but not fully routing.

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