get_network_events

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Query recorded' reasonably implies a read-only operation, and 'correlated with timing and duration' adds useful context. However, it does not mention output shape, pagination, or any edge-case behavior, so coverage is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose without filler. Every word contributes: the resource, the scope, and the timing/duration correlation.

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 two-parameter query tool, the description gives enough context to understand what is returned: network requests and responses with timing/duration correlation. The absence of an output schema is partly mitigated by this stated return focus, though explicit list-vs-single and ordering details would make it 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 input schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds general context about network requests and timing but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('recorded network requests and responses') and adds a distinguishing characteristic ('correlated with timing and duration'). This clearly separates it from generic event tools like get_events or get_timeline.

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 implies when to use the tool: when network request/response data is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_timeline or get_diagnostics, leaving selection logic to inference.

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