playwright__browser_network_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context: the list is scoped to requests since page load, is numbered, and is intended as a summary entry point for the singular detail 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states what the tool returns and its scope, the second explains the follow-up workflow. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs.

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 read-only list tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it defines the result, scope, and the companion tool for details. It could add more explicit return-format detail, but 'numbered list' plus the schema's mention of text output covers the main needs.

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 100%, so filter, static, and filename already have clear definitions. The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond indicating that numbers from this list feed browser_network_request, so the baseline score applies.

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 ('Returns'), a specific resource ('network requests'), and a clear temporal scope ('since loading the page'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling browser_network_request by pointing to that tool 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 explicitly directs the agent to browser_network_request with the returned number when full request details are needed, so the relationship between the two tools is clear. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use this tool, but the list-versus-detail workflow is evident.

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