chrome-devtools-mcp-mux

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, suggesting potential side effects, but the description does not clarify this or add behavioral traits like what 'currently selected request' means operationally, whether it requires DevTools to be open, or any rate limits. It adds minimal context beyond annotations, meeting the lower bar with annotations present.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core functionality and efficiently explains the optional parameter behavior. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's use, with no wasted text.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, readOnlyHint=false), the description covers basic purpose and parameter logic but lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or output format. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in context for safe and effective use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all parameters (reqid, requestFilePath, responseFilePath). The description mentions reqid's optionality and default behavior but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline score for high coverage.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('network request'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it retrieves individual requests rather than listing them like 'list_network_requests'. It precisely defines the scope: fetching by reqid or the currently selected request in DevTools.

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 provides clear context on when to use it: to retrieve a specific network request by reqid or the currently selected one. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'list_network_requests' for browsing multiple requests, leaving some guidance gaps.

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