generate_curl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It clarifies that the tool generates a command rather than executes it, and the use cases imply side-effect-free operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether the command includes headers/cookies or if any request is actually sent, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 well-structured with a clear one-sentence purpose, a prerequisite callout, bullet-style use cases, and a concise parameter note. Every line contributes useful information and no filler or repetition is present.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers the input source and typical usage scenarios. It doesn't detail the output format, but the presence of an output schema reduces that burden, so remaining gaps are minor.

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 fully compensates. It explains that flow_id identifies the captured HTTP flow, and crucially tells the user how to obtain a valid flow_id (via get_traffic_summary or search_traffic). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare 'Flow Id' string in the schema.

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 states a specific verb, resource, and deliverable: 'Generate a copy-paste curl command that reproduces a captured HTTP flow.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like replay_flow or send_raw_request by emphasizing the generated artifact (a curl command) rather than execution.

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 gives explicit usage context, listing concrete use cases (sharing, terminal testing, Burp/Postman import) and a prerequisite (obtain flow_id via get_traffic_summary or search_traffic). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternative siblings.

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