Get network request

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: includes headers/bodies, truncation with original length noted, and redaction with optional override. It lacks detail on error handling or authorization, but covers major traits.

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?

Four sentences with efficient structure. First sentence states main purpose, subsequent sentences add key details. No redundant or wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers what is returned (headers, bodies) and important behaviors (truncation, redaction). It lacks details on error responses or exact return format, but is sufficient for a focused detail 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds practical examples for the id parameter (e.g., 'e_3069', bare numbers accepted), clarifies redact behavior ('pass redact=false'), and explains bundleId optionality. This adds clear value beyond schema.

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 that the tool returns the full detail of one captured network request by event id. It specifies included content (headers, bodies) and references sibling tools find_errors and search_network, distinguishing itself effectively.

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 instructs to use event ids from find_errors or search_network, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it.

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