export_har

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the dependency on network_start and the conditional inclusion of headers and bodies based on capture_bodies. This is meaningful context, though it does not describe what happens if network_start was not called or the exact output 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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the essential prerequisite and data-completeness caveat. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 description covers the core workflow requirement and output format, which is good for a fairly simple tool. However, the path parameter is undocumented and the return value/file destination is not explained, which matters because path is optional with an empty default. This leaves an important gap for correct invocation.

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 description adds no parameter-level semantics. The limit parameter is documented in the schema, but the path parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description, leaving the meaning of the default empty path ambiguous. With only 50% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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's purpose: exporting captured network traffic as a HAR 1.2 file, with the output being openable in DevTools and other HAR viewers. This is a specific verb plus resource, and the HAR format differentiates it from sibling tools like export_curl, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite: network_start must be called first. It also clarifies when bodies/headers will be present, tying usage to a specific capture configuration. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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