Read one 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 of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly covers allowlist denials, restricted-origin refusal, binary-body refusal, size caps, token-mask limitations, header/non-body data never being exposed, and the append-only metadata log. This goes far beyond a simple mutation warning and gives the agent a realistic security model.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then enumerates every consequential constraint. Every sentence adds a meaning, such as allowlist, binary limits, size cap, masking, and metadata logging. It is longer than minimal but justifies its length given the tool's security-critical behavior.

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?

Given no output schema and a non-trivial CDP response body tool, the description should explain what the agent will receive on success and failure. It details many error/denial behaviors but never tells the shape of a successful body (e.g., text content, JSON object, or raw bytes). There is enough behavioral context for safe invocation, but the missing return contract is a real gap.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters completely: requestId is from cdp_network_requests and sessionTabId is a Claimed tab session id returned by claim_tab. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific action and resource: 'Read one response body by requestId from an attached tab.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like cdp_network_requests and cdp_network_watch, and the title 'Read one response body' reinforces the exact scope.

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 implies when to use the tool by stating it operates on a requestId from an attached tab and under an explicit allowlist, but it does not directly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it. There is no explicit routing such as 'use cdp_network_requests first' or 'prefer this over cdp_network_watch for single body reads.' Use is inferable but not explicit.

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