Network capture: start

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It valuably discloses that the tool is stateful (a capture session started here feeds sibling tools) and returns a captureId, but says nothing about lifecycle limits, what happens if started twice, whether capture survives navigation, or the performance cost of includeBodies.

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 with zero padding; the action and the return value are both front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

Without an output schema, the description correctly names the returned captureId, which is the key consume-side detail. For a stateful capture-start tool with no annotations, it leaves open session lifetime, per-tab vs per-page scope, and failure modes.

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 both `filter` and `includeBodies` are already documented in the schema; the description adds no parameter detail beyond that. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Start capturing network requests made by the page") and explicitly situates itself in the browser_network_* family. It is clearly distinguishable from browser_network_stop/list/detail, though it doesn't spell out the start-vs-stop relationship beyond the captureId hand-off.

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 mention that the returned captureId is "used with the other browser_network_* tools" implies this must run before list/detail/stop, giving usable context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion (e.g. one active capture per page), and no prerequisites such as an active tab.

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