monitor-network

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. 'Monitors' suggests passive, non-destructive observation, which is useful, but the description does not disclose whether results are returned immediately, whether the tool blocks until the duration elapses, or how filtered requests are surfaced. Basic transparency, but not rich behavioral detail.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes the key variable. There is no fluff or repetition, so every word earns its place.

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 and no annotations, the description should clarify what the result looks like and whether the tool has side effects. It says only that it 'monitors'network requests, leaving the agent unknowing about return format, timeouts, default behavior, or empty-result handling. For a simple tool this is minimally usable, but incomplete.

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 the parameters are already documented by the schema. The description reinforces the 'duration' concept but adds no meaning beyond the schema for urlPattern. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Monitors'), the resource ('network requests in the browser'), and the primary scoping input ('for a specified duration'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get-console-logs and get-hmr-events, which target different data streams.

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 when to use the tool—when network request monitoring is needed—but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. It provides enough context, but no exclusions or sibling routing.

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