intercept_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does not mention important traits like whether intercepts persist across page loads, affect other tabs, or require specific permissions. The side effects of each action are only briefly described.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by action-specific guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks explanation of interception lifecycle, persistence, tab targeting, API key usage, and interaction with other network tools.

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?

Although input schema has 100% description coverage, the description omits the 'allow' action and does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters like urlPattern or method. It fails to explain how parameters interact with the action.

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 intercepts and modifies or blocks network requests, listing specific actions (block, modify, clear) and their purposes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on assertions, navigation, or element interaction.

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 network request control but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related siblings like assert_network_request_made or clear_network_logs. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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