network

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the 1000-entry cap, that credentials in headers are redacted, that bodies are truncated at 10k, and that binary bodies report size only. It omits whether requests are captured only after page load or whether prior navigation history is included, which matters for interpreting an empty result.

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?

A single dense paragraph with no filler; every clause adds information about format or filtering. It is slightly back-loaded – the output format leads and the actual purpose (request listing) must be inferred from the first few words – but nothing is wasted.

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?

Six optional parameters and no output schema make the description's format string and truncation/redaction notes essential, and they are present. What is missing is capture-window behavior and default tab resolution (though the schema documents the latter), leaving only a minor completeness gap.

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 only 33%, so the description meaningfully compensates: pattern is explained as substring or /regex/, type gets concrete examples (document, fetch, xhr, script), and failed_only is defined precisely as network failures plus HTTP >= 400. Only limit and tab semantics are left entirely to the schema, which does document them, so the gap is small.

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 identifies a specific resource (the HTTP requests issued by a tab) and even specifies the exact output line format, so an agent knows it is retrieving network activity rather than console logs or DOM state. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like console or evaluate, which are the nearest look-alikes.

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?

Filtering options (pattern, type, failed_only) imply the intended debugging workflow, and the mention of request_id implies a drill-down flow, but the description never states when to choose this over console or evaluate, nor any prerequisite such as needing the page loaded or requests captured first.

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