browser_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, safety, and other behaviors. The description contains no behavioral information—no mention of whether actions mutate state, require permissions, or how responses are returned. It is completely opaque.

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 extremely short, which could be seen as concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being a noun phrase rather than a meaningful description. It lacks a clear structure and provides no information that warrants its brevity; it is a placeholder rather than a concise description.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot infer how to call this tool correctly, what side effects to expect, or how to interpret results. The description does not even hint at the tool's capabilities.

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?

While the schema descriptions cover all parameters at 100%, the tool description adds no additional meaning about how parameters relate or should be used together. The phrase 'Network requests/routes' does not clarify the role of 'action' or how 'url' interacts with 'mock'. It fails to compensate for the ambiguity of the tool's purpose.

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 'Network requests/routes' is a fragment, not a statement of purpose. It does not specify a verb or resource, and it is ambiguous whether the tool inspects network activity, mocks routes, or both. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser_console or browser_trace.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about scenarios that favor network inspection or routing, and it names no sibling tools or exclusions. An agent receives no help in selecting this tool appropriately.

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