browser_network_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool can return 'full details (headers and body)' or a single part when `part` is set, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 wasted words. The first sentence conveys the core behavior and variable output, and the second provides the necessary prerequisite context. It is well-structured and easily scanned.

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 three parameters, an enum, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return granularity and how to obtain the index. The filename parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema documents it, so the description remains adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description enhances the schema by explicitly defining 'full details' as 'headers and body' and reinforcing the index's origin in browser_network_requests, adding value beyond the schema's 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 states the specific action: 'Returns full details (headers and body) of a single network request,' using a clear verb and resource. It differentiates from the sibling browser_network_requests by specifying 'single' and referencing that tool's 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 'Use the number from browser_network_requests' clearly implies a workflow: first list requests, then retrieve details by index. It provides context for when to use this tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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