browser_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a management tool with two modes and lists what each mode returns (headers, body, timing). However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, if it modifies state, or any prerequisites (e.g., need for a live session). The behavioral traits are partially disclosed but not fully transparent.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It efficiently covers the key aspects: merging, mode distinction, and filtering. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for modes) to improve readability, but overall it is well-sized and clear.

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 complexity (8 parameters, two modes, no output schema), the description covers the main functionality but lacks details on return format (e.g., pagination, number of entries), behavior of the 'currentOnly' parameter, and any side effects. It is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for advanced use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the mode parameter's sub-modes and providing context on filtering capabilities (URL, method, status code, checkpoint) that maps to multiple parameters. It also clarifies that 'since' is an ISO timestamp and that 'currentOnly' defaults to true. This goes beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool is for network request management, merging the deprecated browser_network_detail. It explicitly describes two modes (list and detail) with distinct purposes, and the context of merging distinguishes it from the deprecated sibling tool. The verb '管理' (manage) and resource '网络请求' (network request) are specific.

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 for when to use each mode (list for listing requests, detail for viewing details). It mentions that detail mode is equivalent to the deprecated browser_network_detail, implying migration guidance. However, it does not explicitly exclude other tools like browser_errors or browser_har_export, nor does it advise against using this tool for other purposes.

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