Network capture: list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' correctly implies a read-only operation and the 'active (or stopped)' clause usefully signals that captures can be queried after stopping, but return format, pagination behavior, and truncation semantics are not disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key constraint (requires an existing/stopped capture) is stated in the fewest possible words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could have explained what a listed request contains and how ordering/pagination works. For a simple three-parameter list tool this is adequate but leaves return-value context unaddressed.

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%, with limit, filter, and captureId all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter behavior or defaults beyond 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 (list) and resource (requests captured by a network capture), which is clear and immediately understandable. It does not contrast itself with the sibling browser_network_detail, which also returns request data, so an agent must infer the difference between listing and detailing.

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 implies when the tool is usable by noting the capture may be 'active (or stopped)', which tells the agent a capture must already exist. However, it never names browser_network_detail or browser_network_start as alternatives, nor states when to prefer this over them.

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