chrome_get_network_request

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It conveys that the entry must already be captured and that the response body may be absent, but it does not explain what happens for missing request IDs, tab targeting, or what fields the returned entry contains.

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 a single concise sentence with the main purpose front-loaded and no filler. It could add a usage pointer, but the format is efficient.

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 simple one-entry retrieval with fully documented parameters, the description covers the core task and caveat, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves the return shape and error behavior undocumented. This is adequate but not complete.

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 the baseline applies; the schema already explains requestId, targetId, urlIncludes, and titleIncludes. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 names a specific verb and object: 'Retrieve one captured fetch/XMLHttpRequest entry'. The 'one' and 'requestId' parameter make it distinct from the plural chrome_list_network_requests sibling, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 requestId schema description ties this to chrome_list_network_requests, implying a list-then-get workflow, but the tool description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The 'when available' caveat hints at limitations but not alternatives.

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