Export HAR

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

No annotations exist, so the description must reveal behaviors. It states 'Export' but does not clarify if the export is a destructive read or if it clears traffic after export. No mention of file overwrite behavior, required permissions, or rate limits.

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 short sentence, making it concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, resulting in an insufficiently informative description. It could include more context without being overly long.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of each filter parameter, the output format, or any constraints (e.g., required state like proxy running). The agent would need additional context to invoke 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 only 25% (only 'outPath' has a description). The description adds minimal value by saying 'optionally filtered' but does not elaborate on the filtering parameters ('host', 'limit', 'urlPattern'). The agent must rely on parameter names alone.

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 tool exports captured traffic to a .har file and mentions optional filtering. It uses a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('captured traffic', '.har file'), which is better than vague but still does not differentiate from other export-like siblings such as 'import_har' or 'get_body'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'import_har', 'get_body', or 'clear_traffic'. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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