Browser Network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the headless-vs-connect behavioral asymmetry, explains the rationale (avoiding latency/risk to live browsing), and notes that block speeds up pages and reduces noise. It stops short of describing return payload shape or error behavior when blocking is attempted in connect mode.

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 that are front-loaded with the three actions before the mode caveat. The second sentence is slightly long but every clause (headless-only, connect mode never intercepts, rationale) earns its place.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus the fully documented schema cover the essentials. The main remaining gap is that return-value shape for list (pagination/limit interaction) is left entirely implicit.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains what block resourceTypes values look like and clarifies the connect-mode semantics tied to the mode parameter. The one gap is that it never mentions the limit or sessionId parameters, leaving the schema to do that work.

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 (inspect/control) and resource (network traffic) and enumerates the three capabilities: list captured requests with fields, clear the log, and block by resource type. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like browser_console_logs or browser_stats without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly states that blocking is only available in headless mode and that connect mode never intercepts requests, which tells the agent when the block action will work versus fail. It does not explicitly route between list/clear/block, but the action enum and stated purposes make the selection clear enough.

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