view-network-request-details

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

Discloses that sensitive headers are redacted, large response bodies are truncated, and includes optional body parameter. Also mentions return type for error (error message string). Given no annotations, this adequately describes behavior.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a purpose: core definition, returned data details, usage guidance, and error handling. No redundant or tangential information.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, parameter source, return types (including error), and limitations (truncation, redaction). Could mention that network logging must be active, but overall sufficient for effective 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 covers all parameters (100%), but description adds value: device_id linked to list-devices and debugger-connect, requestId sourced from view-network-logs, and includeBody clarifies '(if captured)'. This enriches understanding beyond schema.

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 it gets full details of a specific network request by requestId, which distinguishes it from sibling tool view-network-logs that lists requests. The verb 'get' and resource 'details of a specific network request' are specific.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when you need headers, body, or timing for a specific request after listing logs. Also explains error case: if requestId not found, use view-network-logs to get valid IDs. Provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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