net_intercept_clear

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the key side effect—Fetch interception turns off when no rules remain and the page runs at native speed—and that adding a rule re-enables it. This goes beyond the tool name, though it does not address parameter requirements or error 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with a parenthetical that front-loads the core action and then adds the behavioral consequence. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behavior and consequence. It lacks an explicit mention of the sessionId parameter and any edge cases, but the schema supplies the parameter name and type, so the overall context is nearly 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?

The schema documents a single sessionId parameter with 0% description coverage. The tool description only says 'for a session' and never names or explains the sessionId parameter, its requiredness, or its format. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more but does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Clear all network intercept rules for a session.' The word 'all' and the session scoping clearly distinguish it from siblings like net_intercept_add and net_intercept_list.

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 clear behavioral context: interception is switched off once no rules remain and adding a rule re-enables it. This implies when to use the tool versus alternatives, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state exclusion conditions.

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