browser_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. It mentions reading and filtering network requests, but fails to disclose key behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, how requests are stored/retrieved, potential rate limits, or what 'clear requests after reading' entails (e.g., if it affects other tools). The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two short sentences that directly state the purpose and key functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with potential complexity. It doesn't explain what 'network requests' includes (e.g., types, timing), how results are returned, or error conditions. For a tool that might involve monitoring dynamic page behavior, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 both parameters (filter as URL regex pattern, clear as boolean to clear after reading). The description adds marginal value by mentioning filtering, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., regex examples or implications of clearing). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Read network requests made by the page' specifies the verb (read) and resource (network requests). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_navigate or browser_click by focusing on network monitoring rather than page interaction. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., browser_console might also involve network aspects).

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 some implied usage context with 'Filter by URL pattern,' suggesting it's for analyzing network traffic. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., browser_console for logs or browser_snapshot for page state). No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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