playwright__browser_network_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is numbered and how to follow up, but omits notable behavior such as the file-writing side effect when filename is supplied.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The core behavior (numbered list) is front-loaded and the follow-up path is stated immediately after.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly conveys the return shape (numbered list) and the drill-down route, and annotations cover safety. The one material gap is that the filename parameter's file-writing behavior is not surfaced as a behavioral consequence of calling the 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%, so all three parameters (filter regexp, static, filename) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a numbered list of network requests since loading the page') with scope ('since loading the page'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling browser_network_request, which it explicitly names as the drill-down tool.

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?

Explicitly says to use browser_network_request with the listed number to get full details, giving the agent a clean two-step workflow. It does not, however, describe when to reach for this listing tool versus alternatives, or when to use filter/static.

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