browser_network_request

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating it returns headers and body, and that it can return a single part when `part` is set. However, it does not disclose behavior around invalid indices, file output, or other edge cases, which keeps this at a moderate score.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides the essential contextual link to the sibling listing tool. 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 low-complexity retrieval tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned, how to select a specific request, and how to narrow to a single part. The rich parameter schema covers remaining invocation details, and the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit description of the return content.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a small amount of contextual meaning by linking `index` to browser_network_requests output, but this mostly repeats what the schema already says. A baseline 3 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 returns full details of a single network request, and explicitly contrasts this with the list-oriented sibling browser_network_requests. The verb 'Returns' plus the resource ('single network request') and the optional 'part' selector make the purpose unmistakable.

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' gives clear workflow context: first list requests, then use this tool with the returned index. It does not explicitly state 'do not use this for listing all requests,' but the differentiation from the sibling is strongly implied.

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