browser_network_requests

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the list is 'since loading the page' and that it is a numbered summary, which helps the agent understand what it will receive before calling the sibling.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a clear next-step pointer to the sibling tool.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return format (numbered list), the time scope (since loading the page), and how to obtain full details.

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 parameters (filter, static, filename) are already fully documented. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the complete schema.

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 ('Returns'), a clear resource ('network requests'), and a scope qualifier ('since loading the page'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling browser_network_request by explaining that the sibling provides full details using the item number.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: this tool returns a numbered list, and browser_network_request should be used next with the number for full details. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the workflow is obvious and complementary to the sibling.

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