Request detail

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation aligns with the non-mutating 'Inspects' verb, and there is no contradiction. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the caching note ('Small text responses are cached, so they stay readable after navigation') discloses non-obvious persistence behavior that an agent would otherwise not know.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The purpose and parts are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the behavioral caching note in the second sentence earns its place by disclosing a resilience property. No redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, the parts available, and the one non-obvious behavior (caching). It could have explained the timing breakdown / summary default mapping, but nothing an agent needs to safely invoke the tool is critically missing.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters; the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by mapping the 'part' enum values (headers, request body, response body) onto concrete terms, though it omits 'summary' and does not clarify the offset/maxChars paging semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Inspects') with a precise resource ('one request from browser_network') and enumerates the inspectable parts (headers, timing breakdown, request body, response body). This clearly differentiates it from sibling browser_network, which lists requests, versus this tool which drills into one request's details.

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 the usage flow — inspect a request that came from browser_network — which establishes clear context. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus alternatives, nor provides exclusions (e.g., 'for the list use browser_network first, then this for details'). The intended workflow is inferred rather than stated.

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