browser_export_har

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

Discloses that bodies are redacted and size-capped, only textual responses captured, and env variable to disable body capture. No mention of permissions or post-export behavior, but adequate given no annotations.

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 sentences, each adding value: main purpose, use case, limitation (redaction), configuration option. 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?

No output schema, but description mentions 'return it inline' and format (HAR). Slight gap in detailing returned structure, but sufficient for a simple export 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%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add extra meaning beyond schema descriptions; it focuses on output content rather than 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?

Description clearly states the tool exports network traffic as HAR 1.2 archive, lists contents (headers, bodies, statuses, timings), and distinguishes by highlighting this is how to get actual API error payloads.

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?

Implicitly suggests usage for inspecting error details beyond status codes, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like browser_export_repro or state when not to use.

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