network

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether requests are captured live or from a buffer, what the 'clear' parameter destroys, whether repeated calls accumulate or reset data, or what permissions are needed.

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?

It is very short, but the structure is two cryptic fragments rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose. The second sentence 'index feeds network_request' is unexplained and does not earn its place without further context.

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?

This is a tool with three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented destructive-sounding 'clear' parameter. The description leaves critical gaps about behavior, return shape, and reset semantics that an agent needs in order to invoke it 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 coverage is 67%: 'tab' and 'request_timeout' are documented in the schema, but 'clear' has no schema description at all. The tool description provides no parameter meaning beyond the vague 'index feeds network_request,' so it fails to compensate for the missing 'clear' semantics.

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 the resource as page network requests and names fetch, xhr, and resources, but never states the action clearly (list, capture, inspect?). The phrase 'index feeds network_request' hints at a relationship with the sibling tool but does not clarify what this tool itself returns or does.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling network_request. The only relational clue is 'index feeds network_request,' which is too terse to tell an agent when this is the correct choice.

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