get_body

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful constraint — the path is interpreted relative to the session directory — but says nothing about failure modes for a missing file, size limits or truncation, whether the body is text or binary, or whether arbitrary paths are rejected. For a file-reading tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

Two compact fragments, front-loaded with what the resource is and followed immediately by the parameter convention. Nothing is padded, though the telegraphic style costs a little readability compared to a full sentence.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the resource and the path convention but leaves the return shape (raw text versus parsed JSON, truncation, encoding) unstated. Barely adequate rather than complete.

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%, so the description must supply the meaning of the single parameter, and it does: 'path relative to session dir' states the resolution base and the example 'bodies/r3.json' shows the expected format and that no leading slash or absolute path is used. That is real semantic value beyond the bare 'type: string' in the schema, though it omits path-traversal or validation rules.

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 names the resource precisely ('Captured HTTP response body') and makes clear it is a stored capture rather than a live fetch, but it is a noun phrase with no verb and offers no explicit distinction from siblings like get_dom_state or get_shot. An agent can infer the purpose from the name plus phrase, but the description does not do the differentiating work itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. The agent is told what the thing is, not under what circumstances to call it or when to prefer a sibling such as session_md or get_errors.

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