safari_network_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read operation and a stateful prerequisite, but it does not explain what happens if capture was not started, whether the request list is cumulative, or any other side effects. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately gives the critical prerequisite. There is no filler or 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?

The description and schema cover the basics, but with no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left to guess what 'full details' includes and what error or empty behavior occurs before capture. It is minimally sufficient but not complete.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema itself (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It provides no additional parameter details beyond the schema, which is fine but keeps this at the baseline score.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('captured network requests with full details'), so an agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 'safari_network', which limits the clarity score.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'must call safari_start_network_capture first'. This tells the agent the required preceding step. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the stated context is strong enough for most routing decisions.

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