Get raw network statistics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Consume' hints that events may be consumed/destroyed, but this is ambiguous and not explicitly stated. There is no mention of whether the operation is read-only, whether it clears the event buffer, or what other side effects occur. The return summary is mentioned but not described in detail.

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 sentence and is reasonably concise. It front-loads the action and resource. However, the term 'Consume' is slightly jargon-heavy, and a bit more structure (e.g., separating purpose and input) could improve clarity, but it does not waste words.

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?

Without annotations or output schema, the description needs to provide context about usage, parameters, return format, and relation to sibling tools. It only explains the summary operation, leaving out crucial context such as how this links to browser_network_start/poll, what sessionId refers to, and whether events are removed after processing. The complexity of the tool (3 params, one required) is not adequately addressed.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the three parameters (sessionId, timeoutMs, targetSessionId). It does not explain what each parameter does, how they relate to the raw network events, or provide examples. Given zero coverage, this is a critical gap.

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 clear verb ('Consume' and 'summarize') and a specific resource: 'unsanitized Raw Network events'. It also lists the summarized aspects (counts, status, types, bytes, failures, duration), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_get_response_body or network_export_har. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it isn't a full 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The phrase 'Consume unsanitized Raw Network events' implies it operates on events from a capture session, but there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing browser_network_start) or when to prefer this over network_export_har or network_get_response_body.

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