Get exchange detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the return content and body rendering behavior. It does not mention any destructive actions or rate limits, which is acceptable for a read-like operation.

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 two efficient sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds the body format detail.

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 simple retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers return content and body format options adequately. It could mention that the exchange must exist, but this is inferred from context.

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 50% (only bodyFormat has a description). The description adds meaning for bodyFormat (explains rendering) but does not elaborate on the 'id' parameter beyond its implied role as exchange identifier. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 it returns full detail for one exchange including request line, headers, cookies, and bodies. It distinguishes from siblings like list_traffic (which lists) and get_body (which only gets 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?

The description explains body rendering options but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like get_body or search_traffic. Usage context is implied but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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