network_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose useful behavior: the response includes headers and a body prefix, implying the body is truncated. It does not state permission requirements, truncation limits, or error behavior.

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 efficient sentence with no redundant content. It is front-loaded with the resource type and scope, though it is too terse to support correct invocation.

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 read tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits how to obtain the required index and does not clarify body-prefix truncation, which is central to interpreting the result.

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 67%, and the required 'index' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'one fetch/xhr entry' implies index selects an entry, but it does not explain where index comes from or how it maps to the network listing.

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 states the specific resource it retrieves: 'Headers and body prefix of one fetch/xhr entry from network.' This distinguishes it from the sibling 'network' tool, which likely lists entries, but the action verb is implicit rather than explicit.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not tell the agent to call 'network' first to obtain an entry index, nor does it explain when to choose this tool over other network-related siblings.

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