browser_network_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the primary behavior (numbered list since page load) but does not disclose potential side effects, failure behavior, or details about filters and file saving. The return format and the time scope are mentioned, giving a basic understanding, but additional context would be valuable.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the sibling reference is placed at the end, making it easy to scan.

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 simple list tool, the description covers the essential behavior and the relationship to the sibling tool. It does not explain the filter and static parameters, but those are fully documented in the schema. It lacks discussion of error conditions or when the list resets, but the 'since loading the page' scope provides necessary context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness. 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a numbered list of network requests since page load, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling browser_network_request by indicating that the sibling provides full details for a numbered item.

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 explicitly directs the user to use browser_network_request for full details, which provides an alternative for the next step. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over other network-related tools or state any exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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