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 and does well: it discloses the 50KB body limit and the fact that headers are optional to avoid context overflow. This adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond simply saying 'get 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?

The description is two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core action and resource, while the second adds a key constraint and an optional behavior. Every word 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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, the input (uuid), the key behavioral limit (50KB body), and the optional parameter's rationale. The return type is implied by 'Returns complete request/response data', so no further context is needed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining include_headers as a way to prevent MCP context overflow, giving the boolean parameter purpose beyond its default value. This enhances the semantic understanding of the parameter.

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 and resource ('Get full details for a specific request by UUID') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tool get_recent_requests by targeting an individual request with complete data. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Clear context is provided: use when you have a UUID and need full request/response details. The description also mentions the 50KB body limit and optional headers to prevent MCP context overflow, guiding when to set include_headers. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are named.

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