inspect_history_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the positional addressing limitation ('Burp's MCP doesn't expose stable IDs; addressing is positional') and that the tool fetches from proxy history. It does not mention return format, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

The description is extremely concise, with two short paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the purpose. Inline code clarifies the parameter semantics. The usage guidance adds context without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists (documenting return values), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral quirk (positional addressing), and usage context. An agent has enough information to select and correctly invoke this 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It fully explains both parameters: history_id is a 0-based index into the most recent page_size entries, and page_size determines the window. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and types.

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 verb ('Fetch and pretty-print') and the resource ('Burp proxy history entry by index'), making the purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_history and search_history by specifying inspection of a single entry by positional index.

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 provides a concrete usage scenario: 'Use this to inspect cookies/headers before crafting a mutated request.' This helps an agent decide when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, which would have made it stronger.

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