network_monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavior: the tool captures requests the page itself issues, not just externally visible traffic. The workflow also communicates the stateful lifecycle of start/get/stop. It does not detail return payload shape or repeated-start reset behavior, but schema covers the stop semantics. Overall, it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope; the second gives the essential workflow. Every part contributes meaning, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 stateful tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential lifecycle and an example call. However, it does not explain what the get action returns (e.g., status codes, headers, timing data), and there is no guidance on repeated start calls. Since no output schema exists, this missing return-format information leaves the agent somewhat uncertain after invocation. Adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing how the pattern parameter is intended to be used in the workflow ('get(pattern: "api")'), which illustrates parameter application rather than just listing definitions. This minimal but useful addition justifies slightly above 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Capture network requests via CDP'. It also refines the scope with 'including those the page issues itself', which clearly distinguishes what is captured. No sibling tool overlaps with this function, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides a clear workflow: 'start → trigger the action → get(pattern: "api")', which tells an agent the order of operations and how to use the pattern parameter. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool is a natural alternative for network monitoring, so this is acceptable.

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