get_request_detail

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions optional response body but does not explain effects of parameters like include_sensitive or error handling (e.g., if request_id not found). No mention of read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 single sentence is concise, but it is overly brief given the tool has 4 parameters and no schema descriptions. It earns its place but misses opportunities to add value without being verbose.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity (e.g., max_length with minimum). The description does not cover return values, parameter usage details, or error conditions, leaving gaps for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only hints at 'include_body' via 'optional response body'. It does not explain 'max_length' (default 200000), 'include_sensitive', or validated for request_id format. Lacks value beyond parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'network request', clearly indicating the action and object. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_network_requests' (which lists multiple) and 'get_response_body' (which likely returns only body), by mentioning optional response body.

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 vs alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are not referenced. The description implies it is for retrieving a single request, but no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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