get_network_request

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

The description adds real value by pointing at Cookie/Set-Cookie header inspection, which tells an agent why to call it. However, it never explains why a 'get' tool carries readOnlyHint=false — namely that requestFilePath/responseFilePath cause writes to disk and can clobber files. That side effect is consequential and is only visible in the schema.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and default behavior, then the value proposition. No filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully signals what comes back (request and response headers and directives), and the schema covers the file-output variants. Minor gap: it does not clarify that bodies are returned inline by default, which matters for response size expectations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the file-path options. The description only restates the reqid/default-selection semantics and adds nothing about the two file-output parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Gets a network request') plus the lookup key (reqid) and the fallback behavior. It is distinguishable from the sibling list_network_requests by being single-request scoped, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives clear context: pass a reqid, or omit it to get whatever is currently selected in the DevTools Network panel, and it explains the concrete use case (inspecting request/response headers including cookies). It stops short of stating when to prefer list_network_requests or any exclusions.

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