get-network-details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (headers, payload, response body) but does not mention side effects, error behavior for invalid IDs, or any rate limits. The read-only nature is implied by the action 'get', but not explicitly stated.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and the scope of output in a concise, efficient manner without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

This is a simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, so the description is largely complete for a detail-retrieval operation. However, a brief mention of obtaining requestId via query-network-traffic would improve contextual completeness.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (requestId and includeHeaders) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving detailed information about a specific network request, including headers, payload, and response body. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like query-network-traffic, which likely offers a broader list/summary of requests.

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 implies usage when a specific request ID is known, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or prerequisites. No comparison to sibling tools (e.g., using query-network-traffic to find the request ID first) is provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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