browser_network_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the 'since loading the page' scope and the numbered-list behavior, which are not in annotations. It does not mention the file-saving side effect implied by the 'filename' parameter, but that is captured in the schema, so the description remains consistent and adds useful context.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediate follow-up. No filler, redundant, or misleading wording.

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 is a simple list operation with no output schema. The description clearly states what is returned (numbered list of network requests) and how to proceed (use browser_network_request with the number). Combined with schema descriptions for parameters and annotations for safety, the tool description is fully sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 100%, so all three parameters (filter, static, filename) are already well-described. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond implying that the output is a numbered list usable with browser_network_request. This is baseline value given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('numbered list of network requests since loading the page'), clearly distinguishing this list-oriented tool from the sibling browser_network_request which fetches details. It immediately tells the agent what to expect.

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 explicitly points to browser_network_request as the follow-up for full details, giving an alternative and usage context. It does not mention when *not* to use this tool (e.g., if only a specific request type is needed), but the provided alternative is clear enough for typical workflows.

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