ruyi_get_request_initiator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: only requests initiated after injection are captured, and the call stack format is Error().stack. It includes a warning, but does not mention how to reverse the injection or potential side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core action and purpose, the second sentence provides essential usage context and a warning. No filler or redundant content; every word earns its place.

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 tool that enables a specific capability (initiator tracking), the description covers the main purpose, the follow-up step, and the key limitation. It doesn't explain return values or how to stop the injection, but given the tool's narrow role and no output schema, the information provided is largely sufficient.

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 single parameter pageIdx has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not explain its meaning or effect. Without any clarification, an agent cannot confidently determine what pageIdx selects or how to use it, especially since the tool likely operates on a specific page.

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 action ('inject fetch/XHR Proxy') and the purpose ('capture call stacks of subsequent JS requests'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifically targeting initiator capture and referencing the companion tool ruyi_list_network_requests, making its role in the workflow explicit.

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 provides clear workflow context: inject first, then use ruyi_list_network_requests to see initiator info. It also highlights a key limitation (only catches requests after injection). It doesn't explicitly compare to alternative interception tools, but the usage pattern is well implied.

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