Show a request sent from the Kurlo app

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: secrets are masked in the returned data, and the default-to-newest behavior when no entry is supplied. Response size limiting is left to the schema rather than elaborated here.

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 tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is returned, the no-argument default, and the masking guarantee. Front-loaded with the primary action; 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields (status, headers, body, errors, test results, script logs) and flagging secret masking. Combined with the fully documented two-parameter schema and read-only annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already fully documented, including the "last" sentinel and the byte cap with defaults. The description's restatement that omitting entry returns the newest adds slight reinforcement but no new semantics.

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 precise verb and resource ('Show one request the user sent ... and the response they got') and enumerates the payload contents (status, headers, body, errors, test results, script logs). This is clearly distinguishable from list_history (which yields ids) and from send_request-style siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit zero-argument usage path ('Without entry it shows the last one sent, so "why did my last request fail?" needs no other input'), which tells the agent exactly when no parameters are needed. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling diagnose_last_failure, which occupies overlapping territory.

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