monitor_network

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context about the source=page hook being 'installed on first call' and that format=har exports HAR 1.2 for external tooling. No contradictions.

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 key details front-loaded. No redundant phrases or fluff.

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?

Core behavior and all parameters are documented in schema. Description adds source installation detail and har export purpose. Could briefly describe lines/json output format, but overall sufficient for a monitoring tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds nuance beyond schema: 'source=page: XHR/fetch hook (installed on first call); source=browser: all requests incl. static assets. format=har exports HAR 1.2.' This helps understanding installation behavior and har purpose.

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 monitors network requests and distinguishes between two sources (page vs browser) and three formats (lines, json, har). This specificity differentiates it from sibling tools like http_request or network_rules.

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 explains options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like http_request or network_rules. Usage context is implied but no exclusions or guidance is provided.

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