get_network_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key limitation ('response bodies are not included') and clarifies the data source ('CDP Network request/response lifecycle metadata only'). It doesn't mention error behavior or require capture state, but the main limitation is transparently stated.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and no unnecessary words. Every clause adds value, including the explicit limitation on response bodies.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple getter, but it leaves gaps: it doesn't specify what fields the metadata includes (e.g., status, headers, timings) or how to obtain the ID (e.g., via list_network_requests). Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on the return shape would improve completeness.

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 covers both parameters (id and page) with clear descriptions. The description adds little beyond 'by ID', which is already evident from the schema. Baseline 3 applies since schema_description_coverage is 100% and no extra nuance is needed.

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?

Clear and specific: 'Get captured network request metadata by ID.' Distinguishes from sibling list_network_requests by emphasizing retrieval by ID, and the scope is explicit (network request metadata).

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?

Provides context: it retrieves previously captured metadata, and explicitly notes what it does not include (response bodies). This implies when to use it (when you need lifecycle metadata) and when not to (when you need response bodies), though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state prerequisites like first listing requests to obtain an ID.

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