start_network_capture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that all HTTP(S) requests/responses will be captured and that this is a 'begin' operation, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether previous captures are cleared, whether capture persists across navigation, or any performance impact.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous detail. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 no-parameter start action, the description is reasonably complete: it names the protocol, the direction of capture, and the scope. It could mention how capture is retrieved or stopped, but the sibling tools make this inferable, and the action itself is minimal.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema provides complete coverage, so there is no parameter information to compensate for. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds appropriate conceptual context without needing parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Begin capturing') and clearly identifies the resource and scope: all HTTP(S) requests/responses on the current page. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stop_network_capture and get_network_summary.

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 states what the tool does but does not explicitly say when to use it relative to alternatives. It implies the start of a network capture session, especially given the stop_network_capture sibling, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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