browser_network_intercept

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'capture' but the tool name 'intercept' suggests a more active role (e.g., blocking or modifying requests). The description does not disclose whether interception is passive, whether requests are continued or aborted, or if there are side effects on page behavior. This is a significant transparency gap for an interception tool.

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 that is efficient and exactly describes the tool's function. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (interception behavior, optional parameters, output schema), the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but omits important context such as whether interception affects browsing, whether the network domain must be enabled, or how this relates to sibling tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but side effects and usage prerequisites remain 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (slot, url_pattern, capture_body). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely aligns with the capture_body parameter. 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 'Capture network requests with full request/response bodies' clearly states the verb (capture), resource (network requests), and specific scope (full bodies). It distinguishes from sibling browser_network_requests by emphasizing the body capture, making it clear this tool is for intercepting with full payloads.

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 implies usage for capturing network traffic with bodies but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like browser_network_requests, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. It gives a clear context but lacks explicit guidance on choosing between tools.

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