get_request_initiator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency about its operational behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and utility. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and one parameter, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context or behavioral traits, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a debugging 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the need for a 'request_id' by mentioning 'initiated a network request,' but does not explicitly describe the parameter or its format. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score due to incomplete parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('JavaScript call stack that initiated a network request'), and explains its utility ('helps trace which code triggered an API call'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_network_requests' or 'get_response_body', which are related but serve different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the tool's purpose but does not specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a request ID from 'list_network_requests'), exclusions, or direct comparisons to siblings like 'get_response_body' for response data or 'list_network_requests' for listing requests.

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