browser_network_requests

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It fails to state whether network requests are returned in a list, cleared after retrieval, or how the isolation key (via _agent_id) affects behavior. No side effects or return structure are mentioned.

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?

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits essential details, making it insufficiently informative even though it is brief.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns or how network request activity is presented. For a simple tool, it still leaves major gaps in agent understanding.

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% for the single parameter _agent_id, which is fully documented in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 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?

The description '获取网络请求活动' (get network request activity) provides a verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool fetches network request-related data. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all requests, filtered) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser_console_messages or browser_snapshot.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selecting it among the many browser inspection tools.

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