net_dump

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions defaults like redact, dedupe, and dropping data URLs, but it is unclear about side effects, authorization needs, or whether it modifies state. It also omits details about the output format (e.g., rawCount, returned count) that an agent needs to interpret results.

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 relatively short but dense and somewhat cryptic. It front-loads the purpose but lacks clear structure. There is no wasted content, but it could be better organized for readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does not fully equip an agent. It lacks a clear explanation of the output format (rawCount, returned entries) and does not detail how parameters interact. More context on return values and edge cases is needed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining default behaviors for parameters like redact, dedupe, includeDataUrls, and includeBinaryBodies. However, it does not systematically cover all parameters or add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it is a 'Quiet HTTP dump' and details what entries may include (stack, signHeaders, query, backtrace). The name 'net_dump' aligns well. It distinguishes itself from sibling network tools by being a dump tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 provides specific example queries and tips (e.g., 'redact:false dedupe:false query:tiktokv') and mentions default behaviors. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives nor explicitly state prerequisites or exclusions.

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