get_response_body

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions session_id inference from 'monitored request cache' which adds some context, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the request_id is invalid. For a tool that likely interacts with network debugging data, this is insufficient transparency.

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 (two sentences) with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important usage detail about parameter inference. Every sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description's main job is to explain when and how to use this tool. It does this adequately but incompletely - it references list_network_requests appropriately but doesn't cover error cases, permissions, or the nature of the 'monitored request cache'. For a network debugging tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds meaningful context for session_id (can be omitted, inferred from cache) but doesn't explain request_id's purpose or format. Since there are 2 parameters and the description only partially addresses one, it provides some but incomplete semantic value beyond the bare 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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'response body for a request returned by list_network_requests', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing a specific sibling tool (list_network_requests) as the source of requests, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all other tools in the list.

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 clear context: use this tool after list_network_requests to retrieve response bodies, and mentions that session_id can be omitted if inferred from cache. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool or name explicit alternatives among siblings, which prevents a perfect score.

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