getNetworkRequest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (headers, payload, response) and the dependency on requestId from listNetworkRequests. However, it does not mention error behavior, whether network recording must be active, or that the operation is read-only (though implied by 'Get'). This is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, parameter source, and partial return shape. It lacks explicit error handling or edge-case behavior, but the low complexity and simple getter nature make this an acceptable level of completeness.

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?

The schema fully documents requestId with 'Request ID' (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual value by specifying 'Use requestId from listNetworkRequests,' telling the agent where to obtain a valid ID, which enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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's function: 'Get network request details (headers, payload, response).' It specifies a concrete verb and resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listNetworkRequests by focusing on single-request details and referencing the list tool for obtaining IDs.

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 a clear workflow hint: 'Use requestId from listNetworkRequests.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (after listing) and where to get the required parameter. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for a read operation.

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