network_get_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the prerequisite capture_bodies=true, that the request must have already fired, and that url matching selects the newest request. These are meaningful behavioral details. It does not mention failure behavior when no match is found, but the key constraints are covered.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: main purpose first, then the critical prerequisite, then the identification mechanism. No filler or redundancy, and each sentence 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 simple two-parameter read-style tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what data is returned, the required setup, and how to target a specific captured request. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema already explains both parameters and their defaults. The description adds the context that id comes from network_get and that url matches by substring, but it largely echoes the schema rather than adding substantial new semantics.

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 what the tool returns: full request and response detail, including headers and text body, for one captured request. It differentiates from the broader network_get list by emphasizing 'one captured request' and by referencing network_get as the source of the id.

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 concrete guidance on when to use the tool: it must be called after network_start(capture_bodies=true) and before/for a request that already fired. It also explains the two identification modes (id or url substring). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or list exclusions, but the usage context is clear.

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