browser_network_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations don't: the results are numbered/indexed and scoped to the current page load, which tells the agent how to chain into the detail tool. It omits the filename-save behavior, but the schema documents that.

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 waste, with the primary behavior front-loaded and the chaining guidance second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only inspection tool with full annotations and complete schema coverage, the description supplies what's missing: the output is a numbered list and how to expand entries. Slightly short on whether results persist across navigations or how large the list can get, but nothing needed for correct invocation is absent.

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 all four parameters (filter regexp, static toggle, session, filename) are already documented in the schema. The description only adds the numbering concept that connects to the sibling tool, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Returns a numbered list of network requests') with explicit temporal scope ('since loading the page'). It also names the sibling browser_network_request and its role, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 routes the agent: use this tool to get the numbered list, then call browser_network_request with that number for full details. Clear context, though it doesn't mention when the filter/static options select this over other diagnostics like browser_console_messages.

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