interceptor_browser_list_network_fields

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions pagination and truncation (offset, limit, value_max_chars) and implies read-only access, but does not explicitly state that no side effects occur or what happens when called without a browser (e.g., empty results). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and key features (pagination, truncation). No redundant words or structural issues.

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 10 parameters and no output schema. The description does not specify the format or content of the returned data (e.g., array of objects with fields like name, value, direction). This leaves the agent guessing about the return structure, making it incomplete for complex usage.

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%, with each parameter already described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely summarizes pagination/truncation. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (list) and resource (request/response header fields from proxy-captured traffic since browser launch). It also mentions pagination and truncation features, distinguishing it from sibling tools like proxy_list_traffic which lists full traffic entries.

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 implies usage context (after browser launch, from proxy-captured traffic) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like proxy_get_exchange or proxy_search_traffic. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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