browser_get_network_logs

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey the read-only retrieval nature and the word 'recent' hints at a bounded buffer, but it says nothing about the capture window, whether logs are per-tab or global, whether they accumulate across navigations, or what happens when the buffer is empty or the tab ID is unknown.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb, resource, then a parenthetical inventory of the returned fields. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the enumerations earn their place by telling the agent what evidence is available.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned data fields (status codes, failed requests, response times), and the schema fully documents the four parameters. What is missing is operational context — when to prefer it over console logs and how the log buffer behaves — which keeps it from a 5.

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 100% — every parameter (clear, limit, tabId, failedOnly) has an inline description covering default and semantics. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (retrieves network activity) and enumerates exactly what kinds of entries come back (Fetch, XHR, resource requests, status codes, failures, timings), so an agent knows this is the network-log reader and not the console-log reader. It does not explicitly name the nearest sibling, browser_get_console_logs, so it stops short of a 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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name: an agent can infer 'call this when debugging network traffic or failed requests.' There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the alternative (browser_get_console_logs or browser_evaluate), and no note about preconditions such as the tab needing to exist or traffic needing to have occurred.

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