Read network activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it frames the tool purely as a read while the schema exposes action=clear, which destroys captured data — that destructive capability is never disclosed. It also omits whether capture is bounded, requires a specific tab, or resets on navigation, though the 'since page load' scoping is useful.

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 tight sentences with the core scope front-loaded and the optional flag second. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too short given seven parameters.

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 7-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is far too thin: the destructive clear path is undisclosed and most parameters are unexplained in either schema or description. An agent could not reliably invoke anything beyond the default read.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate, yet it only explains includeStatic. The action enum (get/clear), limit, tabId, status, and the filter semantics are left entirely undocumented, and the mention of 'status' refers to returned data rather than the status filter parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read fetch/XHR requests captured since page load') and names the returned fields (status, duration, errors), which clearly separates it from siblings like console or dom. It never explicitly names an alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 includeStatic=true sentence gives real conditional guidance on one option, but there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over console or evaluate, and no mention of the clear action's use case. Usage is implied rather than framed.

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