browser_network_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what is returned, without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, any side effects (e.g., writing to a file when `filename` is set), or session requirements. The `filename` parameter implies a potential file write that is not mentioned in the description.

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-loaded with the primary purpose, and efficiently covers the main functionality and the optional `part` variant. Every word earns its place.

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 relatively simple with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description explains what is returned (headers and body) and how to select a request. It does not mention file-saving behavior or prerequisites like an active session, but given the simplicity and sibling context, it is reasonably 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that `index` is the number from `browser_network_requests` and that `part` can filter to a single part of the request, which goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 returns full details (headers and body) of a single network request, or a specific part if `part` is set. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `browser_network_requests` (which lists requests) by focusing on a single request and referencing the index from that list.

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?

It provides a clear usage guideline: 'Use the number from browser_network_requests.' This indicates the prerequisite step to obtain the index. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool, but the workflow context is clear enough for selecting the tool.

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