查看单个请求详情

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the payload it returns (headers, response headers, Post body, timing, initiator, cookie), but says nothing about read-only/side-effect-free nature, permissions, or whether full bodies are always available versus truncated.

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 sentence that front-loads the keying parameter and then lists the returned information. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description's field enumeration covers what an agent needs to decide the retrieval is worthwhile. It stops just short of stating read-only behavior or body-size caveats.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that requestId is a CDP requestId obtainable from network_list. The description merely restates '按 requestId' without adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('按 requestId 查看单个请求') and enumerates the retrieved fields (headers, body, timing, initiator, cookie), which lets an agent distinguish it from network_list. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling network_body, whose 'Post body' content overlaps with what this tool claims to return.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The only routing hint ('可用 network_list 获取') lives in the input schema, not in the description, so the description itself supplies no usage context.

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