browser_intercept_response

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 explains the actions (replace_body and block), the real-time CDP mechanism, and provides an example. However, it does not disclose that the interception rule persists until disabled or removed, nor does it mention how it interacts with browser_intercept_disable or remove_interception_rule. This lifecycle information is important for safe use.

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?

The description is well-structured with labeled sections (PREREQUISITE, USE CASES, Available actions, Args). It is longer than average but every section adds value, and the example clarifies usage without being redundant. It is somewhat verbose but not wasteful.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, use cases, action semantics, parameter details, and an example. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. The only minor gap is the interception lifecycle, but overall it is fully contextualized.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: url_pattern (regex), action (replace_body or block), search_pattern (required for replace_body), value (replacement text), and session_name (default 'default'). It even provides a concrete example demonstrating parameter usage.

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 opens with 'Intercept and modify INCOMING browser responses in real-time via Chrome CDP Fetch API', which clearly states the specific verb, resource, and mechanism. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool browser_intercept_request by focusing on incoming responses, 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?

It explicitly states the prerequisite (browser_open must be called first) and lists concrete use cases (CSP bypass, response tampering, XSS injection, removing security headers). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the detailed use cases and the distinction from request interception provide clear guidance.

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