devtools_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses the key stateful behavior: capturing starts, list shows captured requests, and clear empties them. It also states that only future requests are captured. It does not say whether monitoring continues after clear or how long the buffer persists, but the core lifecycle is clear.

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 sentences, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the core purpose. The workflow sentence and DevTools analogy each earn their place and make the description immediately scannable.

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 description is enough to invoke the tool correctly: it explains the start-list-clear flow and the DevTools analogy compensates for the absent output schema. It does not detail the exact list result shape or whether clear stops monitoring, but those are minor given the strong schema coverage.

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?

All 6 parameters already have descriptive schema entries, including action meanings, defaults, filter options, and agent routing. The prose adds a high-level framing but does not contribute parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Inspect network requests for a tab." It clearly differentiates from sibling DevTools tools by naming network requests and adding the parallel to the DevTools Network panel.

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 gives a clear workflow: "Start monitoring to capture future requests, then list or clear them." This tells the agent when each action is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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