Intercept Tracking Requests

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful behavioral detail: Puppeteer request interception is used, GA4 /g/collect hits are parsed, and obsolete UA/duplicate events are detected, which goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the main action and resource. Each sentence adds distinct information: interception scope, parsed GA4 details, and detection of obsolete UA/duplicate events.

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 the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and expected findings well. It does not specify the exact return structure, but the enumerated detection types give an agent enough context to understand what the tool delivers.

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%: both url and wait_ms are already described in the schema. The tool description adds little beyond high-level context like 'during page load', so it does not meaningfully improve parameter understanding beyond the baseline.

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?

Describes a specific action (intercept and analyze) on a specific resource (tracking network requests), with concrete subtypes (GA4 hits, GTM, gtag) and outputs (event names, measurement IDs, obsolete UA, duplicate events). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_gtm_snippet or check_datalayer that inspect configuration rather than network traffic.

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 makes the intended context explicit: use when you need to intercept and analyze tracking requests fired during page load. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the focus on network interception gives a clear enough signal compared to the sibling tools.

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