Get network

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the list view truncates query strings, that dev traffic is hidden by default, and that requests before connect are missed due to cold start. It implies a read-only capture but never states whether results persist or how they are ordered.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the modifier mechanics. Every clause carries usable information; the only mild cost is that the truncation/dev-filter/cold-start notes are packed into one paragraph.

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 five-param capture tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the behaviors an agent most needs (truncation, default hidden dev traffic, cold-start gap). The remaining gap is the undocumented limit/search semantics, which is minor given their conventional meaning.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains detail, exclude and include_dev with concrete mechanics, but limit and search are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so compensation is partial.

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 first sentence gives a specific resource (recent in-app HTTP requests) that is clearly distinct from network-adjacent siblings like get_logs and get_errors. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, which keeps it from 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?

It gives concrete conditional guidance: pass detail:<seq> to get full URLs and bodies, include_dev:true reveals dev-tooling traffic, exclude:[...] drops by substring. That tells the agent how to shape the call, though it never states when to prefer this tool over get_logs or get_errors.

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