browser_net_get_requests

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose prerequisites (e.g., monitoring must be active), side effects (does it clear the buffer?), or any behavioral traits beyond a basic retrieval. The reference to browser_docs hints at more info but does not provide it directly.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence efficiently communicates the core action. However, it could include key context without becoming verbose.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description does not explain the return format or fields (e.g., timing breakdown structure). The tool's reliance on a prerequisite (monitoring) is unstated. The reference to browser_docs is too vague to compensate.

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% and the only parameter (filter) is well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema definition.

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 retrieves captured network requests with a timing breakdown, distinguishing it from siblings like browser_net_export_har or browser_net_get_websocket_frames. However, it references external docs ('see browser_docs'), slightly reducing self-contained clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., browser_net_export_har for full export, browser_net_start_monitoring to initiate capture). No exclusions or context provided.

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