browser_network_request

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns either full details or a single part depending on `part`, and it links the index to the sibling list output. This is meaningful beyond the schema fields.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place. The main capability is front-loaded, the optional part behavior is stated compactly, and the selection instruction is minimal and actionable.

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 read-only detail-retrieval tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and selection mechanism. It does not describe the exact output shape or error behavior for invalid indexes, but the phrase 'full details (headers and body)' gives agents enough to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description mostly restates the schema's meaning, such as 'part' selecting a part and 'the number from browser_network_requests' matching the schema's index description. It adds little new value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact resource ('full details (headers and body) of a single network request'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling browser_network_requests by emphasizing 'single' and referencing the numbering source for that 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 gives clear, actionable context: use the number printed by browser_network_requests to select a single request, and optionally set `part` to narrow results. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the reference to the sibling makes the intended workflow obvious.

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