get_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic output (API calls, status codes, timing). It does not mention important aspects such as log retention, whether requests are captured from a certain point onward, or whether reading the log affects its state. This leaves the agent with an incomplete understanding of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. The second sentence adds a practical use case without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it a model of conciseness.

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?

The tool is a straightforward read-only log retriever with all-optional parameters, and the description covers the core function. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves the agent guessing about the exact response structure and any ordering/pagination defaults. It also fails to contextualize how this tool fits with siblings, making the overall guidance incomplete but adequate for basic use.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all four parameters (last, filter, method, status), so the schema itself does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra semantic meaning about the parameters or their interplay, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness but earns no additional credit.

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 opens with 'Get network request log,' which is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_console (console logs) and get_request_detail (individual request details). The added clause 'See API calls, their status codes, and timing' further clarifies the exact scope, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'Essential for debugging Lambda/API issues' implies a usage context, telling the agent this is the go-to tool for network-level debugging. However, it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like get_request_detail for deeper inspection of a single request or clear_network for clearing the log, which are available among siblings.

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