Network capture: stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It says it returns captured requests but does not disclose whether the capture is deleted/terminated afterward, what happens if the captureId is invalid or already stopped, or whether the returned data is complete or partial.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action (stop) and then the outcome (returned requests). Zero waste or filler.

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 and no annotations, so the description does most of the work; it correctly notes the return of captured requests. However, for a state-changing stop operation it omits error conditions and post-stop capture state, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 100% and the single captureId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that it comes from browser_network_start. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, 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 states a specific verb ("Stop") and resource ("running network capture") plus the return behavior ("return the captured requests"). It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling capture tools like browser_network_list or browser_network_detail, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a capture must be running), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this pairs with browser_network_start and is distinct from browser_network_list purely from the name.

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