browser_network_request

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that the tool can return either full details or a single part, and that the number originates from browser_network_requests. This informs the agent about the tool's flexibility and input source, which is valuable. It does not contradict annotations and enriches the behavioral understanding.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core functionality is stated upfront, and the second sentence provides the necessary pointer to the sibling tool. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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's simplicity, a complete schema, and annotations covering safety (read-only, non-destructive), the description is fully adequate. It explains what is returned (full details or a part), how to select the request (using the number from browser_network_requests), and implicitly that output can be text or saved to a file (via filename parameter, though not stated in description, it's in schema). No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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% — every parameter (part, index, filename) has a detailed description in the schema. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the source of the index and omits the filename behavior (which is already described in the schema). With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds marginal value.

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 function: 'Returns full details (headers and body) of a single network request, or a single part if `part` is set.' It explicitly names the resource (a single network request) and the verb, and distinguishes from the sibling browser_network_requests by telling the agent to 'Use the number from browser_network_requests.' This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or how to identify the target request.

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 clear usage context: you must first obtain a request number from browser_network_requests, then pass it as the index. This implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool — after listing requests, to get detailed data for a specific one. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when not to use it, but the relationship to the sibling is clear and the parameter `part` is self-explained in the schema.

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