browser_intercept

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully defines that 'block' cancels the request and the effect is per-op, but says nothing about persistence/scope (per tab?), invalid-regex handling, or how 'redirect' works given there is no target-URL parameter in the schema.

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?

Front-loads the core action in one sentence, follows with a benefit-oriented use case, then a structured Args block. The parenthetical speed-up claim is slightly promotional, but overall the text is tight and well organized.

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 3-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the inputs but leaves return behavior for 'list'/'log'/'clearLog' unexplained and gives no clue how 'redirect' obtains its destination. Adequate but with real gaps.

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 0%, so the description does the documenting: it enumerates the five op values, explains patterns as regexes matched against request URLs, and gives the two effect values with a note that they apply only to 'add'. The only gap is the missing redirect target.

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?

States a specific set of verbs (Block, log, redirect) and the exact resource (HTTP requests by URL regex). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling capture/inspection tools like browser_capture_network or browser_watch_console without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete use cases ('suppress analytics/ads during agent runs' and 'log what an SPA actually fetches') that imply when to reach for it. However, it never names an alternative or a when-not condition, so the agent must infer how it differs from passive capture tools.

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