Show a saved request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the low bar for safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that credentials are excluded from the returned definition and that saved example responses are included for comparison, both of which matter for how an agent interprets the output.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field enumeration is dense but each item tells the agent what to expect in the response. Slightly long-tailed, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned contents and the credentials exclusion. What remains unstated is error behavior for an unresolvable id/path/name, which is a minor gap for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('Request id, path (Collection/Folder/Name) or name'). The description adds nothing beyond that about accepted identifier forms, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Show') and resource ('saved request'), and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows this is a definition/metadata read rather than an execution. It does not name the closely competing siblings (send_request, run_request), leaving the read-vs-execute distinction implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'saved request ... to compare a live response against', which hints at inspection before or after a send. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over send_request or run_request, and no stated alternatives or exclusions.

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