intercept_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains each action (log, block, modify, mock, stop) and associated parameters for modify and mock. However, it omits details like whether interception persists across navigation, how to remove interceptions, or any side effects on the browser state.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently covers all parameters and their roles. It uses a list-like format with lines starting with parameter names, which aids readability. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier scanning.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks important context: it does not describe the return value, how to see intercepted requests, how to remove interceptions, or the lifecycle of the interception. The tool deals with mutable state, but these aspects are not addressed.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively, explaining url_pattern with a glob example, listing all five action values, and clarifying the conditional use of modify_headers, modify_body, and mock_response. This fully covers the purpose and usage of each parameter.

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's purpose: 'Intercept network requests matching a pattern.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the actions (log, block, modify, etc.) further clarify its function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like network_capture or list_network_requests, which also deal with network requests.

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 lists the possible actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative network tools such as network_capture or list_network_requests. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing interception over other methods.

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