Network requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior about the ring buffer's temporal scope and how to recover missing entries via reload. It also implies the buffer can be cleared after reading (via the clear param) without spelling out consequences.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by filtering and then the critical capture-window caveat. No filler text; each sentence carries distinct 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (id, method, URL, status, type, size, duration, cache, initiator). Combined with the buffer caveat and the filter list, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 would be 3, but the description adds value by naming the filter dimensions (URL pattern, resource type, method, status, failures) and confirming 'failures' as a usable status filter. It does not clarify defaults for limit or the all/main-frame-navigation distinction beyond what the schema states.

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 (lists the tab's requests) and enumerates the returned fields, anchoring the mental model to the DevTools Network panel. The 'lists ... requests' phrasing plus field list makes it distinguishable from the HAR-export and single-request siblings even without naming them.

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?

Explains the filter dimensions available for narrowing results and states a real usage constraint: requests made before the agent started watching are unavailable and a reload is needed to capture them. It does not explicitly route to alternatives such as network_har or network_request, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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