network_request_headers

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'View and analyze,' implying a read-only operation, but does not mention any constraints, authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. The lack of detail on what exactly is returned or how the tool operates reduces transparency.

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 fairly concise (3 sentences), but it includes a reference to 'describe_tool' that may not be necessary and could be front-loaded better. The main purpose is stated first, but the additional sentence feels like a fallback.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain the return value structure. It mentions capabilities and headers but does not specify the format or what the agent should expect. Compared to sibling tools with similar complexity, this description is incomplete.

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?

The tool has no parameters, and the input schema is trivial (additionalProperties: true). The description adds meaning by specifying that the tool deals with HTTP request headers from the browser, providing context beyond the schema. For zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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's function: 'View and analyze HTTP request headers sent by your browser.' It distinguishes from the sibling 'network_request_headers_post' by implication (viewing vs posting), but does not explicitly differentiate. The reference to 'describe_tool' suggests the description may be incomplete, slightly reducing clarity.

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 lists what can be understood (browser capabilities, security headers, etc.) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'network_request_headers_post' or other network tools. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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