browser_network_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the debugger release and the retention lifetime of captured data (until clear/restart/reload). It doesn't say what happens if capture was never started, or whether releasing the debugger affects other in-flight tooling.

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 tight sentences: the action first, then the state consequence. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with one optional param, the description covers the action, the side effect, and data persistence. The only gap is that a reader might wonder whether the call returns captured data or whether retrieval happens via browser_network_list/detail, which is left unstated.

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 100% and the only parameter (tabId, optional, defaults to active tab) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about tab scoping, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Stop capture') and an explicit side effect ('release the debugger'), which separates it cleanly from browser_network_start. It stops short of naming a sibling tool by name, so an agent must infer the pairing from context.

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?

'Recorded requests and captured bodies remain available until clear, restart or extension reload' implicitly tells the agent that stopping capture is non-destructive and that data removal requires a different action. That is clear usage context, but no explicit alternative (e.g. browser_network_clear) is named, and there is no guidance on when capture should be stopped at all.

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