page_network_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only listing operation and the 'since capture start' temporal scope, but it does not explicitly state that it never mutates state, nor does it disclose potential pitfalls like empty results or capture prerequisites (e.g., needing page_network_start). It is not misleading, but it lacks some explicit safety context.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The primary action and output are front-loaded, followed by the filter usage and the pairing hint. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the core behavior and filter, but it omits crucial context like the requirement to start a capture session via page_network_start (implied by 'since capture start' but not stated), and it doesn't mention error scenarios or how empty results are represented. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is a notable gap in making it fully self-sufficient.

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% (only 'filter' has a description). The description compensates partially by explaining the filter parameter with examples ('geetest' or 'api.'), but it does not clarify the required session_id and page_id, leaving those two parameters undocumented. It adds value for the filter but falls short of fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('captured HTTP responses'), and the exact output format ([{url, requestId}]). It also distinguishes this tool from its sibling page_network_body by noting the pairing protocol, making its role 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?

The description explicitly pairs this tool with page_network_body for reading response content, which signals when to use this vs. the sibling. However, it does not cover exclusions (e.g., when not to use it) or mention other network-related alternatives like page_console or page_errors, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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