browser_network_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by noting the temporal scope ('since loading the page') and the output format ('numbered list'), which are behavioral traits not present in annotations. No contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by a precise cross-reference to the sibling tool. No redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple, and the schema covers parameters thoroughly. The description tells the agent what output to expect (numbered list) and how to get full details. It doesn't explain return structure in depth, but with no output schema and good annotations, this is mostly complete.

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 fully documented in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Returns a numbered list of network requests since loading the page.' It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('network requests'), and the scope 'since loading the page' distinguishes it from the sibling browser_network_request, which provides full details for a single request.

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 guides usage to an alternative: 'Use browser_network_request with the number to get full details.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (to get a list) and when to switch to the sibling (for details). It clearly maps the workflow.

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