browser_get_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get network requests' without specifying return format, whether it returns live or historical requests, or if any side effects occur. This is insufficient for a tool with no output 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it could be slightly more detailed without sacrificing conciseness.

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 is simple, but with no output schema, the description should explain what 'network requests' entails (e.g., list of URLs, status codes, timing). It also lacks usage context relative to sibling getters, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter sessionId as 'Browser session ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, which is acceptable since the schema already handles it.

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 tool's function: 'Get network requests made by the browser'. It specifies the verb (get), resource (network requests), and scope (made by the browser), which distinguishes it from other getter tools like browser_get_url or browser_get_console.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring a valid session ID, nor does it explain scenarios where other getters (e.g., browser_get_console) would be more appropriate.

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