browser_network_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds that it returns full details or a specific part, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as output size, permissions, or side effects. With annotations providing the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the reference to the sibling tool is concise. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return value expectations. It mentions headers and body and introduces the 'part' option, covering the core. The filename parameter is not mentioned, but the schema handles that, so the description remains sufficient for a single-request detail 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context for the 'index' parameter by explaining that it comes from browser_network_requests, which goes beyond the schema's generic '1-based index' description. This extra guidance justifies a 4.

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 returns full details (headers and body) of a single network request, with an optional part selector. It distinguishes itself from the related browser_network_requests tool by indicating this is the detail lookup for an item in 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 explicitly says 'Use the number from browser_network_requests', providing direct guidance on how to obtain the required index and implying the workflow of first listing requests via the sibling tool. This is clear and actionable, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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