get_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the body is already decoded (gzip/brotli), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential performance impacts, rate limits, or what happens when max_bytes is exceeded. The decoding note adds value, but it's minimal.

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 concise, with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no fluff.

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, but the description omits details like what happens when max_bytes is exceeded, whether partial bodies are returned, or error handling. Since an output schema exists, return format is covered elsewhere, but behavioral nuances are missing. Still, for a straightforward fetch tool, it is adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'which = request | response' and implies max_bytes for large bodies, but doesn't explain the meaning of flow_id or the default behavior of max_bytes. It does not fully specify parameter formats or constraints, leaving gaps.

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 purpose: fetching the full body of a request or response, with gzip/brotli already decoded. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool inspect_flow by specifying it is for large bodies, contrasting with inspect_flow's 4000-character preview.

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 explicitly says 'Use this instead of inspect_flow when the body is large and you need more than inspect_flow's 4000-character preview.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative, fulfilling the dimension perfectly.

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