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 meaningful behavioral context: the tool returns headers and body, can return a single part, and is non-modifying. No contradictions.

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 precise sentences with no filler. First sentence defines the main function and optional behavior, second gives critical usage instruction. 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 retrieval tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers all key aspects: what is returned (full details or part), how to identify the request (index from sibling tool), and the optional filename for saving. Missing output schema is mitigated by mentioning the return contents.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the index comes from `browser_network_requests` and that `part` restricts output. This goes beyond the schema's static definitions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Returns full details... of a single network request' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling `browser_network_requests` by referencing the number from that tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly tells the user to 'Use the number from browser_network_requests', establishing a clear usage sequence. Does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the prerequisite is clear enough for proper invocation.

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