get_network_response_body

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, disclosing buffering behavior, navigation-related loss, redirect-chain semantics, return format, truncation at 50000 characters, handling of binary bodies, and the `note` replacement mechanism. This is rich behavioral context that an agent cannot infer from the schema or 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?

The description is long but every sentence carries distinct, high-value information: purpose, timing caveats, redirect behavior, return structure, metadata fields, error/omission cases. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and progresses logically through caveats and output details without waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent will receive: a JSON metadata block, a separate text body, all metadata fields, the `note`/`truncated`/`omitted` variants, and binary-body behavior. Critical timing and lifecycle caveats are also covered, making the tool callable without further inference.

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 schema only defines requestId as a string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the requestId comes from get_network_requests and represents a captured network request, which is the key meaning an agent needs. It does not detail format constraints, but the derivation from get_network_requests is sufficient for correct use.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the response body for one requestId from get_network_requests.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling get_network_requests and other capture tools, so an agent can immediately know what it 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 gives strong timing guidance: fetch promptly and before navigating away because Chrome discards bodies. It also references get_network_requests as the source of requestIds. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for correct routing.

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