network_capture_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that the debugger lease is released, that returned records can be filtered, that url_pattern follows JavaScript RegExp syntax, and that invalid patterns produce a structured error. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not cover every edge case such as behavior when no capture is active.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action comes first, followed by optional filtering behavior and a key syntax detail. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.

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 description covers filtering semantics and error behavior, but for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations it omits crucial context around session_id and timeout. An agent would not know that session_id likely connects to a prior network_capture_start call or what passing null means. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the invocation context remains incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully adds semantics for url_pattern, resource_type, status_min/status_max, and include_response_bodies by grouping them as filtering options. However, it does not explain session_id or timeout, which are less obvious and important for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Stop Network capture on a real-browser tab.' It also clarifies the related action of releasing the debugger lease, which distinguishes this tool from capture-start or console-capture tools. The mention of returned-record filtering makes the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 stop action implies it is used after a network capture has been started, but the description never explicitly says 'use after network_capture_start' or contrasts it with console_capture_stop. The use-case context is inferable rather than stated, so it does not fully meet the explicit guidance bar.

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