Poll network events

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that data is sanitized and provides details about completion/failure events (method, status, durationMs). However, it omits behaviors like cursor semantics, pagination limits, or whether reading is non-destructive.

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 sentence front-loads the core action and event types, the second adds relevant detail about the completion/failure event fields. 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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only two sentences. It lacks essential context for a polling tool: what the response structure looks like, how cursors work, how to handle empty results, and how it relates to the broader network event workflow.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate. 'after a cursor' loosely maps to the afterCursor parameter, but limit, timeoutMs, and sessionId are not explained; the connection to the schema is minimal.

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 tool reads network metadata events after a cursor, specifying the event types (request, response, completion, failure, WebSocket lifecycle). It distinguishes itself via the 'after a cursor' polling pattern, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like browser_watch_events.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as watch_events or network_stop. It implies sequential polling with 'after a cursor' but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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