browser_network_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the output includes headers and body, and that setting `part` limits the result to a single part. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it does not mention error handling or invalid index behavior.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and every word contributes. It avoids redundancy and clearly communicates the core behavior and the key parameter (`part`) without unnecessary detail.

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?

With a small parameter set and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what the tool returns, how to specify the request, and how to get a part. It could mention output format or potential errors, but the existing schema annotations and sibling reference make it sufficiently complete for a simple retrieval 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning by explaining that the `index` comes from browser_network_requests, and that `part` selects a single part. This cross-reference and interpretation adds value beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 returns full details of a single network request, or a single part if specified. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('single network request'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool browser_network_requests by focusing on a single request rather than listing multiple.

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 explicitly instructs to use the number from browser_network_requests, establishing a clear prerequisite and workflow. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the reference to the sibling tool provides enough context for appropriate usage.

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