network_start_recording

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states that recording starts but does not mention implications such as memory usage, whether recording stops automatically on navigation or tab close, or whether repeated calls stack recordings or cancel previous ones. This is a significant gap for a stateful tool like this.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified in terms of context, but for conciseness this is strong.

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 and no annotations, the description should clarify state management (when recording stops, how to retrieve records, whether it resets existing data). It provides none of that. For a stateful command that a test automation agent will likely pair with network_stop_recording and network_get_requests, this is incomplete.

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 the single parameter 'targetId' is already documented as 'Target ID of the tab'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the parameter is straightforward. Baseline 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 states a clear action ('Start recording') on a specific resource ('network requests for a tab'). It is concise and likely distinguishable from siblings like network_stop_recording, though it does not explicitly name the sibling. The verb and resource are specific enough for an agent to infer the action.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having a tab open), when to stop recording, or how it relates to network_get_requests or network_stop_recording. Agents must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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