Get raw response body

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds critical context that the result is unsanitized and may contain secrets, which is valuable for handling. However, it omits other behavioral details like permissions, error conditions, or resource implications.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The second sentence adds a crucial safety warning. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and sensitive data but misses parameter semantics for sessionId/targetSessionId and does not describe the return format or potential errors. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that requestId is a 'CDP requestId', but does not explain sessionId or targetSessionId beyond raw schema constraints. This leaves two parameters underdocumented.

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 'Read one response body by its original CDP requestId' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_get_stats or network_intercept, which handle different network operations.

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?

Usage is implied: when you have a CDP requestId and need the raw response body. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., network_export_har for broader captures), leaving the agent to infer.

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