获取响应体

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the returned content is text and that binary payloads must be judged by the caller (via mimeType) for base64 handling. However, it omits behavior an agent needs: what happens when the body is unavailable or evicted, whether the response is truncated by maxChars, and any permission or session-state requirements.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the binary-response caveat. The mimeType reference is the only mildly confusing element in an otherwise tight definition.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry more weight than it does. It covers the essence of the return (text body plus a binary caveat) but leaves gaps around requestId provenance, truncation behavior at maxChars, and failure cases for unavailable bodies.

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 only 50%: maxChars is documented in the schema (default 20000) but requestId has no schema description, and the tool description does not explain where requestId comes from or its expected form. The description also references mimeType, which is not a parameter of this tool at all, adding confusion rather than semantic value.

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 names a specific verb+resource: retrieve the response body (text) of a specified request. It is clearly distinct from network_list and network_clear, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling, network_detail. An agent can infer the purpose but must assume the relationship to network_detail.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: no statement that requestId comes from network_list/network_detail, no prerequisites, no indication of when to prefer network_detail instead. The only conditional advice concerns binary responses and base64, which is a handling note rather than a tool-selection rule.

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