browser_intercept_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It discloses the three main actions (delay, fail, mock) and references CDP Fetch, but lacks details on side effects, persistence, conflicts, or cleanup, leaving behavioral transparency partially incomplete.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core action and available behaviors, making it highly efficient for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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 description covers the tool's core operations and mentions CDP Fetch, but omits return value behavior (no output schema) and does not reference related lifecycle tools like browser_disable_interception. For a tool with nested parameters and no output schema, it is adequate but could be more complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., CDP Fetch context). It does not enhance parameter understanding significantly.

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 intercepts network requests to inject delays, force failures, or return mock responses, using CDP Fetch domain. It provides a specific verb-resource combination and scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser_throttle_network.

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 usage for testing and mocking network requests, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., browser_throttle_network) or conditions where interception is not appropriate.

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