filterNetworkRequests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only says 'Returns matching requests with full details,' which suggests a read operation. However, it omits the destructive 'clear' behavior (from the schema), the default types (Fetch, XHR), and any side effects. The tool could clear the network log if clear=true, which is a significant undisclosed behavior.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and return value without any fluff or redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 simple filter tool with 3 parameters and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks key context. It does not mention that the tool can also filter by request types, nor does it disclose the clear side effect or default types. Without an output schema, the return format is vague ('full details'), but the tool's simplicity keeps completeness at a moderate level.

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 schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It mentions URL pattern but doesn't elaborate on the 'types' or 'clear' parameters, which are already explained in the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Filter' and the resource 'network requests' with the specific criterion 'by URL pattern.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'listNetworkRequests' (which lists all) and 'getNetworkRequest' (which retrieves one). The purpose is 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 implies the tool is for filtering network requests, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'listNetworkRequests' or provide any exclusions. The usage context is only implied via the tool name and description, with no mention of the 'types' parameter or clear flag that would affect usage.

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