Network log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context not in the annotations: what each entry contains (status, size, duration), how WebSockets are represented as WS entries with frame counts, and the #id handoff to browser_request_detail. It stops short of describing truncation or limit behavior beyond the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, followed by the detail-tool handoff and the filtering options. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by sketching the shape of each entry and the special WS rows, which is exactly the gap an agent would otherwise face. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, only minor gaps (ordering, pagination/limit behavior) remain.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the enum meanings for 'status' and the substring semantics of 'filter'. The description restates the two filter modes without adding format, defaults, or edge cases beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Lists network requests the session has made') plus the fields returned (status, size, duration), and distinguishes itself from sibling browser_request_detail by explaining that each line carries an #id for that tool. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 by describing the two filtering modes (URL substring, failure status) and the WS entry case, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus browser_request_detail or browser_console. Guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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