get_request

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

Annotations cover the safety profile, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: bodies are "decoded," output is an excerpt rather than the full body, and headers are filtered by default. The one unexplained point is the destructiveHint=true on an obviously read-shaped tool, but the description does not contradict it.

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 compact clauses; the payload summary is front-loaded and the second sentence is purely the paging hint. No filler or restated title.

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 6-parameter read tool with no output schema, key operational questions remain: how to obtain a valid id, how offset interacts with truncation when max_body_bytes is exceeded, and whether excerpts are mid-body continuations. The description is adequate but leaves an agent to discover these.

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 83%, so the schema already documents body, path, offset, all_headers and max_body_bytes thoroughly. The description only lightly reframes path/offset as a paging mechanism ("offset to read on"), adding marginal meaning over "for reading the rest" in 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?

"One request: timing, headers and a decoded body excerpt" names a specific verb+resource and enumerates exactly what is returned, which implicitly separates it from list_requests/search_traffic/summarize_traffic. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so the contrast is inferred rather than stated.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus list_requests or search_traffic, nor where the required id comes from. The only guidance is parameter-level ("Use path to pick part of a JSON body, offset to read on"), which is invocation help, not tool selection guidance.

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