export_network_har

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It simply states the action without disclosing whether it is read-only, whether it clears the cache, or any side effects. The description is too minimal.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but contains insufficient detail. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the output format, parameter effects, or behavioral constraints, making it hard for an AI agent to use correctly.

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%, meaning none of the three parameters (limit, url_filter, include_sensitive) are described in the schema. The description does not explain what these parameters control, leaving the agent without crucial information.

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 clearly states the action 'export', resource 'cached network requests', and format 'HAR-like JSON'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_network_requests' which also deals with network requests.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_request_detail' or 'list_network_requests'. No context on when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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