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. The description adds that the list is scoped to requests 'since loading the page', which is a useful behavioral constraint. It correctly characterizes the tool as a read-only, non-destructive operation. No contradiction with annotations.

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, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, the second gives immediate cross-reference to the sibling tool. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool is relatively simple (list of network requests) and has no output schema. The description mentions it returns a 'numbered list' and points to the sibling for full details, which partially compensates for the lack of output specification. However, the agent might benefit from knowing what information is in the list (e.g., URL, status, method) beyond just numbers. Good overall but a slight gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional context about the parameters (filter, static, filename) beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema descriptions are adequate, the description adds no extra value here. A higher score would require explanation of parameter interactions or typical usage patterns.

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 clearly states the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'numbered list of network requests'. It immediately distinguishes itself from its sibling 'browser_network_request' by directing the agent to use that tool for full details. The purpose is specific and leaves no confusion about what the tool produces.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool (to get a list) and when to switch to the sibling tool (for full details). It implies that this tool provides an overview and the sibling provides depth. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or any prerequisites (e.g., must have a page loaded). Good but not exhaustive.

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