export_har_snapshot

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds that the output is 'compact' and 'HAR-like', but does not explain behavioral details like whether only certain requests are included, if there are size limits, or what 'selected' means operationally. With annotations covering the read-only nature, the extra context is minimal.

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 concise sentence that starts with the action and output. It contains no filler and is easily scannable.

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?

With 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain how to select the page, what 'HAR-like' implies about the return format, or how filtering and preservation options work. This leaves the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention any parameters. Terms like 'selected page' hint at targetPageIdx, and 'network requests' relates to urlFilter, but there is no explanation of how these parameters interact or what includePreservedRequests does. The description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Export' and the resource 'selected page network requests' with an output format 'compact HAR-like snapshot'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_request, which likely performs live requests, by specifying it's an export for offline analysis.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites like selecting a page first (select_page), nor contrasts with similar networking tools such as record_page_flow or network_request. The word 'selected' implies a prior selection step but no explicit context is given.

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