browser_network_requests

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden itself. It discloses that this is a read-only listing operation, scoped to the session, and exactly what each output line contains. It does not discuss the empty-list case, but that is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and every clause earns its place by specifying the resource, the temporal scope, and the exact output format. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema read-only listing, the description covers the essential invocation details: what is listed, from what period, and in what format. It leaves the agent to infer the relationship to browser_network_request, but that is not necessary to call the tool 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter behavior for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, this is a baseline 4 because the description is not expected to document nonexistent parameters.

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 the exact verb 'List' and the resource 'network requests captured since the session started', then defines the output as one line per request with index, method, status, and URL. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling browser_network_request by emphasizing the plural, session-scoped listing.

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 temporal scope 'since the session started' implies when the data is availableients the agent some context for use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer browser_network_request (singular) for detailed request inspection.

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