browser_network_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return payload (method, URL, resource type, status, headers) and that it operates on captured requests (implying a non-destructive read). However, it omits behavior when both `index` and `url` are provided, or when neither is provided (since both are optional in the schema). It also does not state what happens if no matching request is found. These are meaningful gaps in a tool with no safety 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and return fields, then states the selection mechanism. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or filler. The description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify how parameters interact and what happens in edge cases. It explains what is returned and how to select a request, but leaves a key ambiguity: if both `index` and `url` are provided, which takes precedence? Also, it does not specify behavior when no selector is given (though both optional). These omissions make it incomplete for an agent that needs to call it reliably, though the core functionality is clear.

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 both parameters thoroughly: `url` selects the most recent request containing the substring, and `index` is a 0-based index from browser_network_requests. The description adds only the phrase 'selected by index or by url substring', which restates the schema without new meaning. Since the schema handles parameter semantics, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, with no additional value added by the description.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('full detail of one captured network request'), enumerating the exact fields returned (method, URL, resource type, status, headers). It also specifies the two selection mechanisms (index or url substring), distinguishing it from the sibling browser_network_requests which lists all requests. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 implies usage: you need details of a single request rather than a list. It names selection by index (which comes from browser_network_requests) or url substring, so an agent understands when to call it. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of browser_network_requests' or mention any alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the differentiation implicit rather than explicit.

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