browser_network_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the return behavior (full details vs. parts) and the optional filename saving, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the 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 composed of two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes essential information.

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 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's functionality and usage workflow. It could optionally mention error handling for invalid indices, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal new meaning: for 'index' it references the source (browser_network_requests), for 'part' it reiterates enum values, and for 'filename' it restates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already provides adequate semantics.

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 part if the 'part' parameter is set. It distinguishes from sibling tool browser_network_requests by specifying it works on a single request indexed 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use the number from browser_network_requests', providing clear context on how to obtain the required index. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or any alternatives beyond the implied workflow.

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