requests_get_content

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses that no network request is made, that bodies may be truncated by max_body_size, that non-text or unmonitored content types return content: null with a size instead, and that request_headers is always empty. It does not explicitly declare read-only semantics or say whether capture state is affected, leaving a small gap.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the action and the key behavioral caveat, and each paragraph carries a distinct piece of information. A few clauses duplicate the schema's 'accepted and ignored' notes, which is minor waste for an otherwise tight block.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still surfaces the one non-obvious return behavior (null content with size filled in for non-text bodies). Combined with prerequisites, truncation, and ID locality, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly on the first attempt.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining where each required ID originates and by stating that all object IDs are profile-local and must not be reused across profiles — a constraint the schema cannot express. The include_binary and save_* caveats largely restate schema text, so it is not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a captured request's stored metadata and text body') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling reads by noting it makes no new network request, separating it from content_get_text and navigation tools. An agent can locate this tool's role in the capture workflow without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite chain: monitor_id comes from requests_start_monitoring and request_id from requests_list_captured, and profile_id from profiles_list. That effectively routes the agent to the right prior calls. It stops short of naming a when-not-to-use case or an alternative for live content, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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