playwright__browser_network_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return contains headers and body, but says nothing about missing bodies, index-out-of-range handling, or output size, so value beyond annotations is modest.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the primary behavior and appending the dependency on the sibling tool. No redundant or filler 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?

For a simple read-only getter with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the definition is nearly complete and correctly cross-references the sibling that produces the index. The only gap is the return-value shape, which matters slightly more given there is no output schema.

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% and each parameter (part, index, filename) already carries a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces what `part` does but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks – 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 ('Returns full details of a single network request') with clear scope, and names the sibling browser_network_requests as the source of the index. An agent can immediately distinguish this single-request getter from the list tool.

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 the concrete workflow prerequisite ('Use the number from browser_network_requests'), which tells the agent where the required index comes from. It doesn't state when to omit `part` versus requesting a part beyond the inline hint, so no explicit exclusions are given.

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