browser_inspect_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does ('Get captured network requests') and the return format. It fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this requires an active browser session, if network capturing must be enabled beforehand, potential rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections, using minimal sentences that each add value. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (network inspection), no annotations, and an output schema that defines the return structure, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and return format but lacks details on behavioral aspects like session requirements or capture mechanisms, leaving gaps for effective 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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'session' by specifying it as the 'Name of the browser session', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic string type. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates adequately, though it could elaborate on session format or examples.

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 specific action ('Get captured network requests') and resource ('from the page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_inspect_console or browser_inspect_dom that inspect different page aspects. It precisely identifies what the tool retrieves without ambiguity.

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 usage when network requests need inspection, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_inspect_events or prerequisites. It lacks clear exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving usage context inferred rather than stated.

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