chrome-devtools-mcp-mux

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the temporal scope ('since the last navigation') and the optional inclusion of preserved requests, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like potential performance impact, data format, or pagination behavior, leaving some gaps.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and scope, making it easy to understand at a glance, and every part of the sentence serves a purpose.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and scope but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. With annotations providing safety info and schema covering parameters, it meets a baseline but could be more comprehensive for a network monitoring tool.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., pageSize, resourceTypes). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'includePreservedRequests' relates to navigation history. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 action ('List all requests') and the scope ('for the currently selected page since the last navigation'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_network_request' (which likely retrieves a single request) or 'list_console_messages' (which handles console messages rather than network requests), missing full sibling distinction.

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 implies usage context ('currently selected page since the last navigation'), suggesting it's for monitoring network activity after navigation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_network_request' or 'list_console_messages', and doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing a page to be selected or navigated first.

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