get_network_request

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, which is vague. The description adds meaningful behavioral disclosure: it can save request and response bodies to files via requestFilePath/responseFilePath, and returns bodies inline when omitted. It does not mention permission requirements or other side effects, but the file-writing behavior is the key additional trait and is well covered.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core behavior and optional reqid fallback; the second gives the practical use case. Both sentences earn their place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 4 parameters, a complete schema, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return behavior (inline vs file) and typical usage. It could mention how to obtain a reqid (e.g., via list_network_requests), but that is inferable from sibling names and does not block correct invocation.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the reqid optionality but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.

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 gets a network request, optionally by reqid, and falls back to the currently selected request. It also names the key use case (inspecting headers), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_network_requests. However, it does not explicitly contrast with that sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives concrete context: use it to inspect request/response headers and directives. It implies the alternative (list_network_requests) for finding requests but never states 'use list_network_requests to list all requests' or when not to use this tool. This is clear context without explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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