get_network_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that only requests after the MCP connection are included, which is a non-obvious temporal constraint. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, retention limits, side effects, or return format, leaving gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero redundant words. It immediately states the core function, then adds a useful filtering ability, making it concise and well structured for quick comprehension.

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 with only two optional parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain what fields are returned (e.g., URL, status, timing) or whether results are paginated. The 'after MCP connection' note adds context, yet the absence of return-format guidance leaves the description incomplete for agent use.

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% for both parameters (limit and url_filter), so the schema already fully describes them. The description adds a brief mention of URL keyword filtering but no additional depth or syntax beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb+resource structure ('Get page network request records') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_console_logs and get_dom_tree by focusing on network activity. It also adds a precise scope ('requests that occurred after MCP connection'), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for inspecting network requests but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusion cases. It mentions URL filtering as a usage option, but there is no 'when not to use' or comparison with get_console_logs or other sibling tools.

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