browser_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, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the list is 'numbered' and scoped 'since loading the page,' which affects how results should be interpreted and how the agent should proceed. It does not disclose every detail, but given the annotations, the added context is meaningfully helpful.

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 zero wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the sibling reference is placed immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 listing tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is complete. An agent knows what it returns, how the list is numbered, and which sibling to use next. No critical behavioral or operational information is missing.

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 the schema already fully documents filter, static, and filename. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema carries the burden. This is the appropriate baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a numbered list of network requests since loading the page.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool browser_network_request by noting that you should use that tool to get full details. This makes the tool's purpose and relationship to its sibling immediately clear.

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 states the workflow: call this tool to get a numbered list, then call browser_network_request with the number for full details. This is a clear alternative/usage instruction that tells an agent exactly when to use this tool versus a sibling.

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