network_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: the output line shape and that domain-allowlist refusals appear as FAILED. It says nothing about how 'recent' is bounded, what limit does by default, or ordering, which are relevant for a list tool with no safety annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the return format, then filters, then the workflow use case. No filler or restated title; every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes the line format usefully. For a 3-param read tool with no annotations, the only real gap is limit/pagination behavior and how far back 'recent' reaches.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'contains' as a URL substring filter and enumerates resource_type values (xhr, fetch, document, script, image...), adding real meaning beyond bare strings. The third parameter, limit, is never mentioned, leaving the default of 50 and its effect undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the browser's recent requests') and immediately shows the emitted line format '#id METHOD status type url', so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It also differentiates from the sibling network_response by naming it and describing the pairing.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('find the JSON API a page calls') and routes to the alternative ('read a response with network_response(request_id)'). There is no explicit when-not condition, but the workflow handoff is clear enough to select between the two tools confidently.

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