browser_network_request

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavior about optional file saving when 'filename' is provided, which is not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It states the core function and a usage hint, both essential and front-loaded.

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?

It mentions the output includes headers and body, explains partial retrieval via 'part', and references the index source. It does not specify the exact output structure or error cases, but given the low parameter complexity and lack of output schema, it is sufficiently 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 provides clear descriptions for all three parameters: 'part' explains its enum values and omission behavior, 'index' specifies the 1-based source, and 'filename' clarifies the save vs. text output. This gives full semantic coverage.

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 states clearly that it returns full details (headers and body) of a single network request, or a single part if 'part' is set. It also references the source of the index number from browser_network_requests, distinguishing it from the sibling list tool.

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?

It tells the agent to use the number from browser_network_requests, implying this tool is called after listing requests to get details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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