browser_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds genuinely useful behavioral/safety context by warning that page content is untrusted and must not be followed, but it says nothing about read-only nature, how requests accumulate, freshness, or pagination via since.

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, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, followed by the safety note. No filler, and every sentence earns its place.

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 and no annotations, the description partially compensates by enumerating returned fields and flagging untrusted content. However, it leaves limit undocumented and doesn't clarify result shape or pagination behavior for a data-retrieval tool.

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 67%: since and filter are documented in the schema, but limit is not. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the undocumented limit remains unexplained. With most params covered by the schema, the baseline of 3 fits.

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 names a specific resource (network requests) and enumerates the returned fields (method, URL, status, type, duration, size), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like browser_console or browser_screenshot. It lacks explicit sibling routing, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the ~20 browser siblings. The only guidance is a security caveat, not usage direction.

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