Export raw network HAR

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: it writes unsanitized data, targets a private local artifact, and requires explicit confirmation. However, it omits details about prerequisites, persistence, or how the artifact is accessed/retrieved, so behavioral transparency is only partially addressed.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word earns its place and there is no 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?

Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description does not mention return values, retrieval of the artifact, or session prerequisites. For a tool that writes a file, the lack of info about how the result is communicated is a significant gap.

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 0%, and the description only hints at the confirmation requirement. It does not explain sessionId, timeoutMs, or targetSessionId, leaving the agent to guess their roles. The 'Requires explicit confirmation' note adds some meaning to the `confirmed` parameter but does not compensate for the other three undocumented parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('captured unsanitized requests... to a private local HAR artifact'), distinguishing it from related network tools. It unambiguously identifies the core function of exporting a HAR file.

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 use after network capture ('captured') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like network_get_response_body or network_intercept. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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