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 safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying that it returns 'full details (headers and body)' or a single part, which informs the agent about the response structure. No contradictions are present.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and contains zero wasted words. Every sentence provides actionable information (what it returns, how to specify the request, the optional part filter).

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 the low complexity (3 parameters, all with descriptions, 100% coverage, no nested schemas, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main use cases (full details or a single part) and ties into the sibling tool for input. The only minor gap is that the agent might benefit from knowing what happens if `index` is out of range, but that is a judgment call.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal additional meaning—it mentions the `part` parameter and the `index` parameter implicitly via `browser_network_requests`—but does not go beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 network request, optionally a single part via the `part` parameter. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `browser_network_requests` by explicitly referencing its output ("the number from browser_network_requests"), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 says to use the number from `browser_network_requests` to select the request, which provides clear context for usage. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or list alternatives beyond the sibling reference, but the connection is explicit enough for an agent to know when to invoke this tool.

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