monitor_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It explains that 'wait_for_download' blocks, that 'capture_response_body' adds overhead, and the role of each command. However, it does not mention whether monitoring persists across page navigations or if there are side effects on session state.

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?

The description is structured with a two-sentence overview followed by a clear Args block. It is concise but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for readability. No redundant sentences.

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 the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema) the description covers usage context and parameter meanings well. It explains what 'query' returns ('captured events') and that 'wait_for_download' blocks, but does not detail the structure of returned events. This is adequate but could be more complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides thorough explanations for all 7 parameters, including defaults (e.g., timeout_ms=30000, capture_response_body=false) and functional descriptions (e.g., url_pattern as an optional regex filter). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type/title info.

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's purpose: 'Control network monitoring for the current session.' It explains the four commands (start, stop, query, wait_for_download) and differentiates from sibling tools like 'scout_page_tool' and 'take_screenshot_tool' by focusing on network request capture rather than page inspection or visual capture.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Start monitoring before performing actions that trigger API calls or downloads, then query to see what was captured.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related tasks.

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