browser_network_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation with open-ended data. The description adds context about the temporal scope ('since loading the page'), which is useful but doesn't detail behavior like return format, pagination, or data freshness. With annotations covering core traits, this earns a baseline score for adding some value.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Returns all network requests') and adds necessary context ('since loading the page'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, annotations covering safety), the description is adequate but has gaps. It lacks output details (no schema provided) and doesn't explain data scope or limitations, which could be helpful for an agent. It meets minimum viability but isn't fully comprehensive.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but since there are no params, this is acceptable and earns a high baseline score for not being required to compensate.

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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('all network requests since loading the page'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_console_messages' or 'scan_page', which might also retrieve browser data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after page load), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'browser_console_messages' for different data types, leaving usage context implied at best.

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