export_network_capture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that existing files are never overwritten, default masking behavior, retention of URL paths, absence of full anonymization, and the warning to keep original captures out of public repositories. It also describes the return payload including redaction mode and pending/dropped work.

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 structured with Args and Returns sections, and every sentence adds operational value. It front-loads the core purpose and packs important caveats without 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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description gives sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result. It covers all four parameters, return values, and important behavioral constraints. The only minor omission is mention of prerequisites like an active capture, but the reference to network_capture covers the lifecycle adequately.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters, and it does. Each parameter is given meaningful semantics: save_path is a new local JSON path that never overwrites, include_body is gated by include_sensitive, include_sensitive details the redaction trade-off, and url_filter is an optional substring filter.

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 states a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('versioned JSON snapshot of this manager's retained capture'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like network_capture and export_state. The scope is immediately understandable.

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 clear context for when to use this tool and explicitly directs users to network_capture(stop, wait_timeout_ms) for a settled snapshot. It also clarifies that include_body does not fetch or replay requests, preventing misuse. It does not explicitly name export_state as an alternative, but the export-specific context is strong.

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