network_enable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'enable CDP network request capture' with no mention of side effects, whether capture must be explicitly disabled later, resource overhead, or whether this affects other tools' behavior. For a tool that likely enables a persistent capture state, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely short (one phrase), which is economical but arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. At this length, it verges on tautological—'enable CDP network request capture' doesn't add meaningful context beyond the tool name itself. It's not wasting words, but it's also not earning its place with useful elaboration.

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 that this tool likely enables a persistent state affecting subsequent network operations, and there is no output schema or annotations, a comprehensive description should explain what happens after enabling, how to verify it worked, and any interaction with sibling network tools (wait_for_network_idle, drain_events). The single-phrase description is inadequate for a state-changing tool with no structured metadata to compensate.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no properties to document). Per the rubric with 0 params, the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics issues exist because there are no parameters to clarify.

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 '启用 CDP 网络请求捕获' (enable CDP network request capture) states a verb+resource but is quite terse. It identifies the action (enable network capture) but doesn't distinguish it from siblings like wait_for_network_idle, drain_events, or cdp which are network-related tools. The purpose is understandable but thin and lacks differentiation from clearly related sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like wait_for_network_idle, drain_events, and cdp all touching network functionality, the description provides zero context on when enabling CDP network capture is appropriate, what scenarios call for it, or when it should NOT be used. This is a complete absence of usage guidance.

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