get_request_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a notable behavioral trait: automatic redaction of authentication-related headers. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor describe any side effects. The redaction disclosure is valuable but incomplete for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and adds the redaction behavior without redundancy. Every word contributes value.

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?

The description is concise and mentions the key redaction behavior, and an output schema exists to define return structure. However, it does not explicitly place the tool in the flow of using sibling tools (e.g., 'Use get_request_ids first to obtain an ID'), which would enhance completeness for an agent deciding when to invoke it.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including descriptions for request_id and source. The description text adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond reaffirming that it retrieves details by ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly.

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 states a specific verb ('获取' - retrieve) and resource ('完整请求详情' - full request details), scoped by request ID. It also adds a distinct feature (auto-redaction of auth headers) that differentiates it from sibling tools like list_urls_methods or get_status_code_stats, which focus on listing or statistics.

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 implies usage by request ID but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_request_ids or search_har. The schema's request_id description mentions it can be obtained from list_urls_methods or get_request_ids, which provides context, but the description text itself offers no direct guidance on selecting this tool over siblings.

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