session_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully declares a dependency on session_start and frames the operation as read-oriented network inspection. It does not disclose limitations such as retention, request body availability, or any side effects, but for a simple inspection tool the disclosed behavior is adequate.

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?

Three short sentences carry the main object, detail, an AJAX/error signal, the pattern, and a prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the most identifying information and avoids filler. The phrase 'Паттерн network inspection' is slightly redundant but not harmful.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter tool, the description covers the active tab scope, the returned fields, AJAX/error visibility, the required session prerequisite, and the output schema exists to handle return values. Missing 'limit' semantics and explicit alternative guidance keep it from being maximal.

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?

There is one parameter, 'limit', but schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions it at all. The schema title and default value are present, but the agent is not told that limit controls how many recent requests are returned. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 the resource ('active tab network') and the data returned (recent requests with status, method, type, url). It also highlights AJAX and error visibility, which positions the tool as a network inspection tool, distinct enough from the many session_* siblings. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list/get', so not a 5.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Требует session_start.' It also implies the use case—inspecting recent network requests, including AJAX and errors. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives like session_status or session_console, so the routing guidance is mostly implicit.

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