browser_network_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that it can return either full details or a single part via the 'part' parameter, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe error behaviors or what happens when the index is invalid, leaving some gaps.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word earns its place. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and the key usage hint.

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 read-only retrieval tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains the core behavior and the source of the index. It omits details like return format or error cases, but the annotations and schema compensate, so the overall context is sufficient.

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%, so parameters are well documented. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that the 'index' comes from browser_network_requests and that 'part' can restrict the output to a single part. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 of a single network request, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('details of a single network request'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool browser_network_requests by emphasizing 'single' and referencing its index.

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 instruction to 'Use the number from browser_network_requests' provides clear context for when to use this tool, linking it to the list tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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