clear_network_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Clear' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this is reversible, what permissions are needed, whether it affects ongoing captures, or what confirmation/response to expect. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.

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?

Extremely concise at three words with zero wasted language. The description is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place by specifying what gets cleared (network logs) and that they are 'captured' (implying prior action).

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'clear' entails (deletion? reset?), whether there are side effects, what happens if no logs exist, or what the agent should expect after invocation. Given the complexity of a mutation operation, more context 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 description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'pageId' is fully described in the schema as 'Page ID (uses active page if not specified)'). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Clear captured network logs' clearly states the action (clear) and resource (captured network logs). It distinguishes from sibling 'clear_console_logs' by specifying network logs rather than console logs. However, it doesn't specify what 'captured' means or the scope of clearing.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this clears network logs (vs console logs), there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether network capture must be active), timing considerations, or what happens after clearing. The description alone doesn't help an agent decide when this operation is appropriate.

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