List network requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context: it returns a numbered list, it covers requests since page load, and numbers are used to retrieve details via another tool. No contradiction with 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that clearly state the purpose and a usage hint. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 explains the return value (numbered list) and how to get full details via a sibling tool. It does not specify the exact format of the list items or any limitations, but for a list tool with good schema coverage and annotations, this is sufficient. The output schema is absent, so the description carries the burden; it does so adequately.

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 high (75%), with three of four parameters having descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. 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 explicitly states the tool returns a 'numbered list of network requests since loading the page.' It uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('network requests'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'browser_network_request' by indicating that tool is used for full details.

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 a clear usage hint: 'Use browser_network_request with the number to get full details.' This tells the agent when to switch to a sibling tool. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs other browser tools, but the context of siblings and the tool's purpose are clear enough.

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