get_request_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the purpose and that headers are included. It doesn't explain what other details are returned, what happens on no match, or whether it requires a prior get_network call. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool that could impact debugging workflows.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the main action and a key detail. This is an appropriately concise structure for a simple tool.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose but omits contextual details like typical usage flow (e.g., after get_network) and what 'detailed info' includes beyond headers. It's adequate but leaves the agent to infer important operational 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond implying that 'id' or 'url' selects a specific request. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed info about a specific network request'), and mentions a concrete inclusion ('including headers'). It is clear and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_network by focusing on detail for a single request, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or contrast them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used after get_network or how to obtain the ID/URL. The only hint comes from the schema ('Request ID from get_network output'), but that's not in the description.

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