browser_network_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'captured' hints that requests must already exist in the session, which is genuinely useful, but there is no disclosure of capture enablement, retention, pagination beyond the schema default, or whether results include bodies. Adequate but thin for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the core action plus purpose are front-loaded in the first clause.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place return shape could be described, yet it says nothing about what a request entry contains (method, status, headers, timing) or ordering. For a listing tool this is a noticeable but not fatal gap.

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 schema already documents limit, filter_type (with its accepted values) and url_pattern. The description only restates that filtering by type or URL pattern is possible, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('captured HTTP/XHR/Fetch/WebSocket network requests'), plus the intent ('for reverse engineering'). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like browser_network_get_response (single response body) and browser_websocket_messages (WS frames only), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

'For reverse engineering' and 'Filter by type or URL pattern' imply when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus browser_network_get_response or browser_export_traffic, and no stated prerequisite that traffic must already have been captured by navigating.

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