browser_network_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the temporal scope ('since loading the page') and the format ('numbered list'). It does not disclose behaviors like whether requests accumulate between calls, if pending requests are included, or any pagination. This is adequate but minimal given the annotation safety.

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 sentences: the first precisely states the tool's function and scope, the second provides a direct pointer to the complementary sibling tool. Every word is necessary, no fluff. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description minimally specifies the return format ('numbered list') and mentions the sibling for details. It does not clarify whether the list includes all requests or respects the filter parameter's scope, nor does it address edge cases like empty results or multiple page loads. Acceptable for a simple list tool, but gaps remain.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (filter, static, filename), so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself does not add any additional meaning or usage guidance for the parameters, meeting the baseline expectation of 3.

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 tool returns a numbered list of network requests since page load, and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tool browser_network_request by directing the agent to use that tool for full details. The verb 'returns' and resource 'network requests' are specific and distinct from other browser tools.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to get a list of network requests) and points to the sibling browser_network_request for detailed inspection. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or contrast with other network-related siblings like browser_route or browser_network_state_set, leaving some ambiguity for complex scenarios.

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