pmux_browser_network_body

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses caching ('Body is cached after the first call'), error states ('404 if not cached/available', 'Electron-only 503/409'), and the output format. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but the caching and error descriptions provide good behavioral insight.

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 extremely concise: three sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by critical behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value.

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 has no output schema, but the description partially compensates by indicating the output format ({tabId, requestId, body}) and error scenarios. However, it does not describe the 'body' field content or provide examples. Given the lack of output schema, the description is fairly complete but could be slightly more precise about return values.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100% (each param described in the schema). The description adds marginal value by mentioning parameters in a shorthand format and discussing caching, but does not provide new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a single network response body by requestId'. It specifies the verb (Get), resource (network response body), and key parameter (requestId). The context distinguishes it from siblings like pmux_browser_network, which lists requests.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'Electron-only' and caching behavior, but does not compare with siblings like pmux_browser_network or pmux_browser_console. The agent would need additional context to decide tool selection.

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