Network requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: a bounded ring buffer of the latest 500 requests and newest-at-bottom ordering. It does not cover permissions, whether recording is always active, or rate/refresh behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and its retention limit before moving to filtering and the detail-tool handoff. Every sentence contributes; only the parenthetical type list is mildly expendable.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes the result shape (list, newest at bottom, 500-record cap) and how to drill into a specific entry. Missing only minor operational context such as whether the list refreshes live or requires re-invocation.

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% (filter, type, failed, tab, slot, limit all documented inline), so the baseline is 3. The description's mentions of filter ('URL part'), type categories, and failed ('failures only') largely restate the schema rather than adding new semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Tab network request list') plus concrete scope ('latest 500 since CDPM first attached to the tab'). It also explicitly routes the agent to the sibling browser_network_detail for details, so it is distinguishable from its closest neighbor without opening either schema.

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?

Explains how to narrow results with filter/type/failed and names the alternative (browser_network_detail) with the condition that selects it ('For details pass the n-number'). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the routing is clear.

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