browser_network_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output is automatically sanitized and lists the included fields. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, or whether the tool requires prior network requests. The transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value, listing key outputs and the sanitization feature. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

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 absence of an output schema, the description explains the return fields (headers, body summary, duration, failure reasons). However, it does not clarify the 'round' or 'checkpoint' concept referenced in the parameter schema, nor does it specify the data structure (list vs. single item). Slightly incomplete but largely sufficient for a detail viewer.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain parameter interactions, deprecations, or search behavior. It merely rephrases the tool's output without relating to parameters.

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: viewing details of network requests for the current session. It lists specific elements (headers, body summary, duration, failure reasons) and mentions automatic sanitization, distinguishing it from siblings like 'browser_network' and 'browser_har_export'.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. No contextual cues are provided to help the agent decide.

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