Analyze network latency bottlenecks and failed asset loads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the prerequisite that recording must be active, the computed statistics, and the initiator-trace extraction. It doesn't describe the response shape or how endpoints are normalized, but adds real context over the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then outputs, then use cases, then prerequisite. Every sentence carries information, though the dense enumeration of computed statistics is on the longer side for a three-parameter tool.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the tool produces (percentile latencies, slowest requests, error groups) and states the prerequisite. It is nearly complete for calling correctly; only the exact return structure and endpoint-normalization rules are left unspecified.

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%, with all three parameters (limit, thresholdMs, includeInitiators) fully documented in the schema. The description only loosely gestures at the threshold concept via 'exceeding a threshold duration', adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (analyzes) and resource (captured HTTP network requests) and enumerates concrete outputs: P50/P90/P99 latencies per normalized endpoint, slowest requests with initiator stacks, and grouped 4xx/5xx/transport errors. This differentiates it from the plain sibling lol_cdp_network_summary without needing to open either schema.

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?

Gives clear usage scenarios (diagnose frontend lag, sluggish LCU REST endpoints, broken plugin scripts, missing icons) and an explicit prerequisite: network recording must be active, call lol_cdp_network_start first. It stops short of naming a specific alternative or stating when-not-to-use it, so it's clear context without exclusions.

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