Network Log

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool is read-only and capture is automatic, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or whether the session must be active. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses efficient language. Every sentence contributes meaning, though some structural optimization (e.g., bullet points) could improve scannability.

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 no output schema and 6 parameters, the description adequately covers purpose and filters but omits response structure, ordering, or limits. The agent lacks full context for interpreting the tool's output.

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% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds value by summarizing filter capabilities (URL pattern, method, status range, content-type) but does not provide deeper semantics beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 the tool is for viewing HTTP requests/responses, lists the data fields shown (method, status, URL, size, timing), and mentions filtering capabilities. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'network_intercept' which focuses on interception.

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 implies that the tool is for passive viewing after capture starts automatically, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'network_intercept'). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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