Network requests

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries meaningful extra weight and delivers: bodies are truncated to the first 4 KB, bodies are only available when they are text/JSON, and capture happens only while an agent drives the tab. These are real behavioral constraints beyond the annotation, though nothing is said about retention, buffer limits, or what 'clear' does.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the two behavior-altering flags. No filler, though the field enumeration and parameter notes make it denser than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. Remaining gaps are the undocumented 'clear', 'limit' (pagination/cap behavior), and 'tabId' parameters, which leaves it short of fully complete for a 6-parameter tool.

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 17% (only 'filter' documented), so the description must compensate and it partially does by explaining failedOnly and includeBodies semantics. However, 'clear', 'limit', and 'tabId' remain undocumented in both places, and 'clear' in particular is ambiguous (clear the capture buffer vs. clear the response).

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 names the exact resource (network requests the page made) and enumerates the returned fields (method, URL, status, time, type, size), covering fetch/XHR plus all resource types. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like browser_console or browser_downloads, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'captured while an agent drives the tab' hints the tool is meaningful during an active session, and the failedOnly clause hints at a debug-failures use case. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as browser_console or browser_downloads, and no exclusions.

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