capture_network_on_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs an action (click, navigate, type) and captures resulting network requests, which implies side effects on the browser state. However, it does not explicitly warn that the action will be executed (e.g., navigation away from current page) or mention any other behavioral traits like waiting behavior or potential failures. This is a moderate gap given the tool's mutating nature.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes key return details. There is no wasted wording, and it earns every word.

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 tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and a partial description of return values (URL, headers, body, method). It does not mention filtering or waiting behavior, but those are adequately documented in the schema. The description is complete enough for basic selection and invocation, though it could be richer given the complexity of browser actions.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all seven parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, only mentioning action types in parentheses and the output format. Since schema_description_coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding.

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 captures network requests triggered by user actions (click, navigate, type) and specifies the return details (URL, headers, body, method). This differentiates it from sibling tools like intercept_and_modify_traffic, which modify traffic, and extract_api_data, which extracts API data.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when you need to capture network requests generated by specific browser actions. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous and sufficient for an agent to know its primary use case.

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