Network Inspector: Event Detail

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

Adds significant behavior beyond annotations: truncation at maxBodyChars, warnings when truncated, use of includeFullBody to override, and the no-body/404 edge case for DNS/TLS/TCP events. This is consistent with readOnly, idempotent, and destructiveHint false annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and id provenance, followed by behavior caveats and prerequisite. Every sentence contributes actionable information with no filler.

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?

Covers the critical edge cases, prerequisites, truncation, override, and possible 404. It does not fully describe the response envelope beyond 'headers and body' and 'warnings', and there is no output schema, but the description is strong enough for an agent to call it correctly in most cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by tying id to list_events output, providing the default 4096 cap, warning that includeFullBody can return very large data, and explaining per-event body constraints.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('full headers and body for one captured event'), and the id source ('from network_inspector_list_events'). This distinguishes it from list_events and other network inspector sibling tools without ambiguity.

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?

Provides concrete context: use with an id from network_inspector_list_events, requires Network Inspector enabled, and warns that DNS/TLS/TCP events may yield 404. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools, but the id-source instruction and clear purpose make appropriate use obvious.

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