playwright__browser_network_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating it returns full headers/body or a single part if `part` is set, which tells the agent what kind of data to expect.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence defines the core behavior and another gives the one essential usage instruction. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 read-only lookup tool with a fully described schema and relevant annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the required input, the output scope, and the relationship to browser_network_requests. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the exact response structure beyond 'headers and body' isn't detailed, though this is minor.

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 some value by clarifying that the index comes from browser_network_requests and that omitting `part` returns full details, but most parameter meaning is already in the schema.

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's verb and resource: 'Returns full details ... of a single network request.' It also references browser_network_requests as the source of the index, which distinguishes this detail-retrieval tool from the list-retrieval sibling.

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 clear usage context by instructing the agent to 'Use the number from browser_network_requests', which establishes the prerequisite and workflow. It does not explicitly describe when-not-to-use or list alternative tools, but the dependency on the listing tool is clear enough.

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