get_request

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full disclosure burden, and it does add real value: headers and body are redacted, the body is bounded and only returned on request, and bodies must be enabled server-side. It does not state that this is a read-only operation or what happens when bodies are disabled.

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?

A single compact clause with no filler and the optional-body caveat placed at the end where it reads naturally. It is efficient, though the missing subject makes it read as a fragment rather than a purposeful statement.

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-value explanation is not required, and the redaction/bounding notes cover the riskiest behavior. What remains missing is routing versus get_response and how to obtain the required transaction_id, which matters for a 3-parameter lookup tool in a crowded sibling set.

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 description reinforces the include_body/max_body_bytes semantics (optional, bounded, redacted), though most of that detail is already in the schema. The required transaction_id is not mentioned in the description at all, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 is a noun-phrase inventory of what comes back (request line, redacted headers, timing, sizes, optional body) rather than a verb+resource statement. It hints strongly that this retrieves the HTTP request for a transaction, but it never says so outright and does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_response.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling alternatives (get_response, list_requests, search_traffic), and no note that transaction_id should be sourced from list_requests — that hint lives only in the schema. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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