Wait for Response Body

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

Disclosures sensitivity of response bodies (credentials, personal data, secrets, binary content) beyond annotations, which already mark it as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. No contradiction with 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?

Description is concise and front-loaded with purpose, but slightly dense with multiple pieces of advice. Every sentence adds value, though a more structured format could improve readability.

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 usage and sensitivity well but lacks parameter documentation for 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage. Output schema exists but not described, leaving some gaps for full contextual understanding.

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 0%, and the description only mentions 'narrow filters' and 'acknowledgeRawCapture' without explaining other parameters (method, status, urlRegex, etc.). This leaves agents with insufficient guidance for correct parameter usage.

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 captures a single response body for API, authentication, redirect, or payload diagnosis. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'one response' and referencing trace search for multi-request investigations.

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 explicit preconditions (start wait before action, use narrow filters, pass acknowledgeRawCapture on authorized system) and guidance to prefer trace search for multi-request investigations, offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use directions.

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