get_network_request

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

No annotations provided. The description only mentions ID and URL fallback but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling, or what happens when URL matches multiple requests.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action, then the fallback. Perfectly concise.

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?

The description covers the basic behavior but lacks completeness: no explanation of what 'details' includes, no output format description, and no mention of behavior when both id and url are provided.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds context that URL is a fallback, complementing the schema definition. However, no further detail on format beyond the enum.

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 action ('Get request details') and the primary resource ('by ID'), with a fallback mechanism 'URL lookup'. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_network_requests' which lists requests.

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 when an ID is available from list_network_requests, with URL as fallback. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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