get_response_body

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses that response bodies are 'captured automatically for fetch/xhr/document requests.' This adds behavioral context beyond the input schema, though it does not cover all limitations (e.g., availability after session closure).

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 description covers purpose and use case but lacks details on output format, potential limitations (e.g., empty body for non-captured requests), and does not mention the absence of an output schema. For a simple retrieval tool, it is adequate but not comprehensively 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 baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter; e.g., url_pattern is described in the schema with examples.

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 purpose: 'Get the actual API response body text for a request matching a URL pattern.' It specifies the verb, resource, and matching condition, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_network_log by focusing on the raw response body.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Critical for diagnosing 400/500 errors.' This gives a prime scenario but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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