browser_network

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: metadata only (no body), failed_only default true, url_pattern substring matching, and incremental cursor. But it leaves details like return order/format and meaning of '同上' unclear.

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?

Single sentence efficiently packs purpose, key filters, and cursor behavior. No redundancy, every clause adds information.

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?

For a 5-param tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers main behaviors but lacks explicit info on limit/task_id, return format, and references an unclear 'same as above' context. Adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates partially: explains failed_only and url_pattern, and implies since via cursor. It does not explain limit or task_id, leaving gaps for two parameters.

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?

Description uses specific verb '读取' (read) and resource '网络请求元数据' (network request metadata), enumerating fields (method/url/status/resource type) and exclusion (no body). This clearly differentiates from sibling browser_network_body.

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?

Provides context about failed_only default and url_pattern filtering, and '增量游标同上' implies cursor usage. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, though '不含 body' hints at browser_network_body.

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