get_network_request

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint false, so the agent knows the tool isn't read-only. The description adds the behavior of returning the currently selected request when reqid is omitted, which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention file-saving side effects (only in the schema) or return format, so it adds some but not rich transparency.

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 a single sentence of about 20 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 tool is simple with 3 optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core functionality and the fallback behavior, which is sufficient for the low complexity. It doesn't describe return values, but for a getter this is reasonably inferable.

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%, with each parameter fully described in the schema. The description only repeats 'optional reqid' already present in the schema, so it adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Gets') and resource ('network request'), and clarifies the optional reqid behavior and fallback to the currently selected request. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_network_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 states when to supply a reqid and what happens when it's omitted, giving clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose inherently differentiates it from listing tools, so the context is sufficient.

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