browser_network_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: requests are listed since page load, and it returns a numbered list. No contradictions. Could mention if the list is cleared on navigation, but not necessary.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, immediately followed by usage guidance. Every word is functional, no redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description indicates it returns a 'numbered list' and directs to the detail tool. This is sufficient for a simple list tool. Could be improved by hinting at the list format (e.g., URLs or titles), but not necessary.

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%; each parameter already has clear descriptions. The tool description does not add new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 'Returns a numbered list of network requests since loading the page,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from the sibling browser_network_request by indicating that the full details are obtained via that tool with the corresponding number.

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 clear context: use this tool to get a list, then use browser_network_request for details. It mentions optional filters (static, filter, filename) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if direct detail is needed).

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