get_network_request

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

Description implies a read-only operation ('Gets', 'returns') but annotation readOnlyHint=false indicates write side effects. The schema shows file-saving parameters that write request/response bodies to disk, which the description never discloses. This is a direct contradiction of the implied read-only nature.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and default behavior, then a useful access note. No wasted words.

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?

Omits the file-saving parameters (requestFilePath, responseFilePath) and required pageId. For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete about how the tool can be used and what side effects it has.

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 100%, fully documenting all four parameters. The description only repeats the reqid default already in the schema and adds no meaning beyond it.

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 'Gets' and resource 'network request', with optional reqid behavior. Clearly distinguishes from sibling list_network_requests by fetching a single request.

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 a clear use case: inspecting request and response headers including cookies. Does not name alternatives or specify when not to use, but context is sufficient for a simple getter.

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