Tap

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description confirms by using 'Enable' (idempotent action). However, the description fails to explain what interception actually entails (e.g., blocking requests, logging URLs, modifying headers) or how long the enabled state persists.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action and contains no wasted words. However, extreme brevity results in underspecification rather than efficient communication; the description is incomplete rather than merely concise.

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 this is a stateful, open-world operation (openWorldHint=true) with no output schema, the 3-word description is inadequate. It lacks explanation of the interception mechanism, the optional patterns filtering behavior, and the relationship to sibling inspection tools.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but does not. It fails to explain that 'patterns' filters which URLs are intercepted, what format strings should take (globs, regex), or that the parameter is optional (all array items intercepted if omitted).

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?

Description provides a clear verb ('Enable') and resource ('request interception'), accurately reflecting the tool's function. While it implicitly contrasts with sibling 'intercept_off' through the action verb, it does not explicitly differentiate between the two states in the text itself.

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?

Description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'intercept_off' or prerequisites (e.g., whether network inspection must be active first). No mention of typical workflows or side effects that would help an agent decide invocation timing.

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