browser_get_response_body

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation (get details including body) but does not mention any behavioral traits like potential size of response, performance implications, or error handling. The presence of an output schema mitigates some need for return value description, but additional transparency would be beneficial.

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 concise (47 words) and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement, a usage workflow sentence, and then argument descriptions. No unnecessary words.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description provides essential context. It does not cover error cases or prerequisites beyond the workflow, but it is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

Though schema coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning to both parameters: request_id is explained as 'The request ID from browser_get_network_logs' with an example, and session_id is described as 'Browser session ID'. This compensates for the sparse schema titles.

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 'Get the full details of a specific network request, including response body.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_get_network_logs (which lists requests) and browser_intercept_request (which modifies requests).

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?

Explicitly states to use browser_get_network_logs first to find request IDs, then call this tool. This provides a clear workflow and prerequisites. No when-not-to guidance is needed given the narrow scope.

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