browser_list_intercept_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the rules are browser-level only and points to the sibling tool for proxy-level, adding behavioral context beyond a simple 'list' statement. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but for a read-only list operation this is acceptable.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the main purpose, follows with an important note about scope and alternatives, and ends with a clear Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter), a clear output schema, and the description covering scope and alternatives, the description is complete. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional return value documentation.

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?

The schema has no property descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description includes an Args section explaining session_name as 'Browser session to use (default: "default")'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema field name and default value, effectively compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool lists active CDP Fetch interception rules for a browser session with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool list_interception_rules, making its 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it notes that these are browser-level rules only (set via browser_intercept_request/response) and directs users to use list_interception_rules for proxy-level rules. This is a clear alternative and exclusion.

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