browser_network_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns headers and body and can be narrowed to one part, which is useful but not particularly deep. No contradiction or hidden destructive behavior is disclosed or left ambiguous.

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?

Two short sentences carry all essential information: what is returned, how to narrow it, and where the index comes from. There is no filler, and the most important behavioral constraint is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only retrieval tool, the description plus schema is largely sufficient: the user knows what to pass, where the index originates, and what kind of data to expect. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of headers and body, though exact response structure is not specified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains `index`, `part`, and `filename`. The description adds meaningful context by saying the index is the number from browser_network_requests and that `part` changes the result, but it does not substantially expand on what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('full details of a single network request'), and the optional scoping to a part. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling browser_network_requests, which lists requests, by saying 'Use the number from browser_network_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 gives explicit context: the index comes from browser_network_requests, and `part` narrows the return to a single section. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the reference to the sibling tool makes the intended workflow clear.

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