Get network requests

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already covering safety, the description adds useful behavioral context: the request window begins at the last navigate_url, returned fields include status/duration/failure reason/mock status, and static assets are excluded by default. It does not describe response ordering or pagination beyond what the schema covers, but it is more informative than a bare read operation.

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 definition is two tight sentences with no wasted wording. The main scope and returned fields are front-loaded, and the exception about static assets follows immediately.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives the essential scope, return fields, and default filtering behavior. It could go further by noting ordering or how results relate to get_console_errors, but it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains limit, failedOnly, urlContains, includeStatic, and resourceTypes. The description reinforces the static-asset default but adds no parameter syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "List HTTP requests made by the page since the last navigate_url." It also enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_console_errors, so it falls short of the top score.

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 phrase "since the last navigate_url" implies this tool is used after navigation, and "Static assets are hidden by default" gives some filtering context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_console_errors, mock_route, or other diagnostic siblings.

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