browser_network_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with the description. The description adds useful context by specifying that requests are 'buffered' and that the index is '1-based', but it does not disclose behavior for out-of-range indices or response format. This is modest added value beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Read one buffered network request by its 1-based index.' Every word is necessary and directly contributes to understanding the tool's core function. No wasted content.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, read-only), yet there is no output schema, so the description should ideally indicate what the response contains or any error behavior. The description confirms the operation and index semantics but leaves the return value implicit. Adequate but not fully 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 67%, and the description's mention of '1-based index' clarifies the semantics of the 'index' parameter, which the schema only describes as a number with minimum 1. The other parameters (pageId, sessionId) are adequately described in the schema, so the description adds some but not complete parameter clarity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('one buffered network request') and a precise qualifier ('by its 1-based index'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'browser_network_requests' (plural), which presumably lists all 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving a single request but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'browser_network_requests' or any other alternative. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing the index from a list, or exclusions.

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