browser_network_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape and that pagination/filtering exist, which is useful. It omits whether capture must be active, what happens when nothing is captured, and default ordering/limit behavior — meaningful gaps for a list tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then capability, then the routing hint. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

It partially compensates for the missing output schema by naming the returned fields, which is good. But with 7 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, an agent still lacks the precondition (capture active) and the pagination defaults needed to call reliably.

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 coverage is 71%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the grouping notion that some params are filters and others pagination; it adds nothing for tabId semantics or limit/offset interaction. 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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('captured requests') and an explicit enumeration of the returned fields (IDs, URLs, methods, statuses, durations, failures). It also names the sibling browser_network_detail for the drill-down path, though it doesn't distinguish itself from browser_network_clear or browser_network_export_har.

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?

'Use the returned id in browser_network_detail' gives one explicit routing rule to a sibling. However, it never states the prerequisite that capture must be running (browser_network_start) for results to exist, nor when to choose export_har or network_clear instead. Usage is implied rather than delimited.

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