network_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the --enable-observers requirement, the exact scope of what is and isn't included, and the nature of resource timing entries (timing and size but no status). It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the context implies it. It adds value by clarifying limitations beyond what the schema offers.

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 exceptionally concise, with the core purpose front-loaded, a useful optional flag explained, and a key limitation stated. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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?

While the description covers the main behavior, includeResources, and limitations, it does not explain several parameters (clear, limit, sinceSeq) that likely control filtering and pagination. With 9 parameters and no output schema, a more thorough explanation of these would improve completeness. The current description is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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 67%, so the description does not need to compensate heavily. It does add meaning for includeResources (explaining it lists scripts/images/styles from Resource Timing), which goes beyond the schema. However, it leaves clear, limit, and sinceSeq unexplained, and the description does not clarify their purpose. Given the moderate coverage, this is a minimal but acceptable contribution.

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 lists page network requests (fetch and XMLHttpRequest) with method, URL, status, and duration. It also specifies what it includes (resource timing entries when flagged) and excludes (document request and headers), making its purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite (requires --enable-observers) and explains when to use includeResources for resource timing entries. It also notes exclusions (document request and headers). However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context provided is sufficient.

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