chrome_list_network_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists captured activity; it does not reveal whether it returns a plain list, whether it includes preserved requests across navigations, whether the 'clear' option has side effects, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool with side-effect-capable parameters.

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 identifies the tool's core function with no wasted words. However, it is perhaps too sparse given the complexity of the parameters, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must provide substantial context. It lacks any mention of return format, extension prerequisites, tab-selection semantics, or the effect of the 'clear' parameter. An agent calling this tool would be uncertain about what it returns and how it behaves under different parameter combinations.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter has a description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description neither enhances nor contradicts the schema.

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 clear action ('List') and resource ('fetch/XMLHttpRequest activity'), and mentions the companion extension as the capture source. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling chrome_get_network_request, but the verb 'list' implies a collection rather than a single item, which provides some differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like chrome_get_network_request, chrome_list_console_messages, or even when the companion extension is required. There are no usage contexts, selection criteria, or explicit exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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