get_network_activity

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: events are filtered to significant requests, explains status values with HTTP code ranges, and describes the return shape including empty response. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise with no wasted words. It uses bullet points for status values, front-loads the main purpose, and each sentence adds necessary information.

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 2 parameters with good schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return format (requests array, count, empty case) and the filtering behavior. Complete for a read-only network log tool.

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%, but description adds value by explaining defaulting behavior for deviceId and the purpose of platform. The additional context on defaults improves usability beyond the schema alone.

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 returns structured network events from platform logs since the last action. The verb 'returns' and resource 'network events' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_logs by focusing on network activity.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: immediately after an action when backend evidence is needed and result is ambiguous. Also instructs not to call more than once per action, providing clear usage boundaries.

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