browser_network_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that id is a stable identifier, that a legacy zero-based index is accepted, and that the details flag includes a response body preview. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., unknown id/index), side effects, or response format. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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: the first front-loads the primary purpose and source, the second clarifies the alternate identifier. No filler or redundancies, and every clause adds information the agent needs.

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?

The description is adequate for invoking the tool correctly (knowing id or index is accepted and details toggles preview), but with no output schema it leaves the return value underspecified. It does not describe what fields are returned, what happens when no identifier is provided, or any limit/retention behavior of the request list. More detail on the response shape would complete the picture.

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 67% (id lacks a schema description), but the description compensates by explaining the id as a stable identifier from browser_network_requests. It also adds the 'legacy' nuance to the index parameter, clarifying its relationship to the retained list. The details parameter's purpose is both in the schema and reflected in the description.

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 ('Get details') with a clear resource ('a single network request') and the source ('from browser_network_requests'). It also mentions the stable-id and legacy-index identification methods, which distinguishes it from the sibling list tool browser_network_requests.

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 clearly points to the source (browser_network_requests) and explains the two accepted identifier forms, giving the agent enough context to know when to call it after listing requests. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the provenance is strong enough to imply the list-then-fetch pattern.

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