network_get_response_body

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it delivers the single most important non-obvious trait: Chrome discards bodies on navigation, so reads must happen before leaving the document. It does not describe error behavior when the body has already been discarded or the response format, but the core failure mode is proactively disclosed.

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 with zero filler: the first front-loads the purpose and resource, the second adds a high-value caveat. 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?

For a simple follow-up read tool, the description covers purpose, id provenance, and the critical lifecycle constraint. Gaps are minor: there is no output schema and the description does not hint at the return format, and the schema marks all params optional while the description implies one id is needed — but neither gap is likely to cause a wrong 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 description coverage is 100%: requestId/request_id aliasing, the source of the id, and the max_body_bytes cap semantics are all documented in the schema. The description's reference to "from network_get_requests" mostly restates what the schema already says, so it adds minimal value beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Fetch the full response body for one requestId from network_get_requests" uses a specific verb and resource and names the upstream tool that produces the requestId. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings such as network_get_requests (lists requests) and network_wait_for_request (waits for a request), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 when-to-use context: it is a follow-up to network_get_requests, and the warning "read them while the page is still on the same document" provides explicit timing guidance that prevents a common failure. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent will use it correctly.

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