browser_network_intercept

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool modifies network request behavior (block, mock, passthrough) and explains mock action parameters. However, it does not mention persistence scope or side effects on future requests.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line intro, followed by a well-structured Args list. It is efficient, though the Args could potentially be integrated more succinctly into prose.

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?

All 6 parameters (2 required) are documented in the description. The output schema exists, so return value explanation is unnecessary. The tool's functionality is fully covered for an interception tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds extensive meaning via the Args section, detailing each parameter's purpose (e.g., url_pattern as glob pattern, action options). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 'Intercept network requests — block, mock, or passthrough' using specific verbs and a clear resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_navigate or browser_network_continue.

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 outlines parameters and actions but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use block vs mock vs continue, or when not to use this tool. Usage is implied but not differentiated.

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