ff_network

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

Discloses it operates on a real Firefox instance and requires a bridge add-on. However, with no annotations, the description fails to mention if the tool is read-only or has side effects, which is adequate but not thorough.

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 with key information front-loaded. The first sentence covers functionality and output, the second adds operational context. No redundant text.

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?

Given four unannotated parameters and no output schema, the description should explain parameter usage and output structure. It only hints at output fields but lacks details on arguments and response format.

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?

No parameter descriptions are given despite 0% schema coverage. The description does not explain the four parameters (type, limit, tabId, filter) or how to use them, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists recent network requests (XHR/fetch/docs) from a real tab, including method/url/type/status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ff_clear_network and other ff_* tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Mentions the need for a bridge add-on and real Firefox, but does not specify prerequisites or when not to use it.

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