intercept_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It gives no information about whether the interception is scoped app-wide, whether it persists until cleared, what happens to concurrent requests, whether prior interceptions are overwritten, or whether partial null values (only one null) have defined behavior.

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 filler. The text is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first three words. However, this brevity comes at the cost of important behavioral and parameter details.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is underspecified. It doesn't explain URL pattern matching syntax, response body format, lifecycle/clearing semantics beyond the single null hint, or interaction with other network tools. The tool is more complex than the description acknowledges.

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 makes no explicit mention of urlPattern or responseBody as parameter names. The "Pass null for both" instruction implicitly references the two parameters but never maps them by name, leaving the agent to guess which parameter holds the pattern versus the body.

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?

"Mocks a network response" uses a specific verb with a resource, and pairs naturally with siblings like set_network_status. However, it doesn't clarify the scope (which requests it intercepts, whether it's URL-based or global), and the second sentence about passing null to clear is only understandable once you infer the two parameters correspond to urlPattern and responseBody.

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 gives one usage hint (pass null to both to clear), which tells how to undo the mock, but provides no guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives like set_network_status or read_logs, no scenarios, and no context on prerequisites.

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