browser_network_body

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains text decoding vs. binary (only byte count), the per-item cap (BROWSER_NETWORK_BODY_CAP), and the confirmation requirement with reasoning. This is extensive and compensates for the lack of annotations.

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-loads the core function, and every clause adds useful detail (prerequisite, binary behavior, cap, confirmation). No filler or repetition; highly 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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, prerequisites, behavioral outcomes (text vs. binary), size cap, and confirmation flow. It does not mention error cases (e.g., seq not found) or the exact return structure, but for a relatively simple read operation, it is nearly 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'seq' (used to identify the request) and 'confirmed' (requires true for confirmation), but does not mention 'task_id' at all. Two of three parameters are given meaning beyond the schema, but the gap for task_id prevents a higher score.

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's function: '按 seq 读取单个请求的响应体' (read the response body of a single request by seq). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_network (which likely lists requests) and browser_read (which reads page content).

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?

Provides prerequisites (BROWSER_ALLOW_NETWORK_BODY=true) and a usage requirement (confirmed=true) with a rationale: the response body is page-controlled content and the URL should be shown to the user first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context implies when to use this tool over others. Lacks explicit exclusionary guidance but is overall clear.

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