zerodom_network_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses passive-only behavior, the 200-entry cap, the reset semantics via clear=True, and explicitly disclaims modification of traffic. No annotation contradiction exists.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior, and every sentence adds value: scope, cap, non-interception, and alternatives. It avoids restating schema fields or repeating the tool name.

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 simple one-parameter log tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it defines what is captured, the retention window, the cap, the meaning of clear, and what the tool does not do. An agent has enough to invoke and interpret this 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?

The only parameter, clear, has 0% schema description coverage, but the description explains its effect by saying the log covers entries since the last call with clear=True. It strongly implies reset-on-clear, though it does not explicitly state 'set clear=true to clear the log'.

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?

States a specific function: show requests/responses made by the active tab, with method/status and URL. The description clearly distinguishes this passive log tool from traffic-interception approaches and sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly says this is passive visibility only and not interception, then names the alternatives: page.route() for full interception and zerodom_eval_js for ad hoc fetch/XMLHttpRequest overrides. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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