network_clear

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the network buffer is emptied, describes the intended effect on future reads, and explicitly notes that the browser's own Network panel is unaffected. This is strong transparency for a zero-parameter utility.

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 tightly written sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the key clarification in the second sentence. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool does, why an agent would use it, and what it does not affect. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by explaining why no parameters are needed: the tool acts on the current network buffer as a whole. There is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.

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 specific action ('Empty the network buffer') and distinguishes it from the browser's own Network panel, which prevents confusion. It is immediately obvious what this tool does and how it differs from related tools like network_get_requests or console_clear.

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 when to use it: before taking an action, to ensure subsequent network reads only reflect that action. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the right context.

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