http_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output nature (headers and body) and implies a read-only operation by saying 'Show', but it does not mention what happens if the request_id is invalid or whether any side effects occur. For a read tool this is acceptable but minimal, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, compact sentence that conveys the action, target, and content without extraneous words. 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description covers the essential behavior. It omits how to obtain request_id, but given the sibling http_history and the low complexity, the context is sufficiently complete. An explicit pointer to http_history would raise it to a 5.

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 schema has only one parameter, request_id, with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by saying 'one logged entry', which clarifies that request_id refers to a logged entry ID. However, it does not explain how to find that ID or provide format details, so it only partially compensates for the lack of 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 a specific action ('Show') on a specific resource ('one logged entry') and specifies the content ('full request and response (headers + body)'). This differentiates it from siblings like http_history (list) and http_send (send), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'one logged entry' provides clear context that this tool is for inspecting a specific entry from a logged session, implying it should be used after http_history. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings.

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