get_network_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool is read-only (captured request details) and describes parameters, but does not specify behavior on invalid request_id, rate limits, or performance implications. Decent coverage but lacks edge-case details.

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?

Description is concise (3 sentences and a param list) and front-loaded with the purpose. Each part adds value, though the returns section could be more detailed. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions return as 'dict with request and response details' but lacks specifics on structure. For 4 params, it covers param semantics well but omits error handling and response format details.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema), so description must compensate. It explains request_id source, default values for booleans, and the special value -1 for max_body_size. This adds significant meaning beyond schema titles and types.

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 tool 'get full details of a specific captured network request', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_network_requests' (which lists requests) and 'get_request_initiator' (which gets the initiator).

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 implies usage by referencing 'from list_network_requests' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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