enable_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the primary action ('start capturing') but omits behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects on existing captures, reversibility, or what happens if no connection is active. The description is not misleading but is too sparse.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the core action. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler or repetition of the name.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites (active connection), effects on prior captures, or how to retrieve what is captured. The sibling tools hint at a workflow, but this description does not connect to it.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter (connection_id described as 'Chrome connection to use'). The description adds no extra parameter meaning and even introduces potential ambiguity by saying 'current connection' instead of referencing the parameter, but the schema itself is clear, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Start capturing network requests') with a clear resource ('network requests') and scope ('for the current connection'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_network_requests (retrieval) and clear_network_requests (clearing).

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The intended usage is implied by the name/action, but there is no mention of needing an active connection or that captured data can be retrieved via get_network_requests.

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