browser_network_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of transparency. It only discloses that requests are 'recent' and implies a read operation, but doesn't address side effects, scope, or limitations (e.g., whether it clears the log or only tracks CDP slot).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Get', and the parenthetical adds relevant context without redundancy. Every word 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks behavioral detail and usage context that would be especially important given no annotations, making it only minimally complete.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, though it could clarify 'slot' context.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'recent network requests', clearly stating the tool's function. It is distinguished from sibling tools like browser_network_intercept which focuses on interception, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

States a clear use case: 'useful for debugging API calls', which signals when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, leaving some room for ambiguity compared to the ideal.

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