get_network_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly via 'Return' and the Chrome-only constraint, and it states what data is included. However, it does not explain how logging is scoped (e.g., since the browser started), whether retrieval clears the captured logs, or any side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the key output fields and the platform constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 the tool's simplicity, three optional parameters, and the absence of an output schema, the description provides enough information to invoke the tool correctly and understand the returned data. It does not explain the capture window or ordering, but these are minor omissions for a straightforward log-retrieval 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (limit, method, url_filter) are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics or examples beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('captured XHR/fetch network requests'), and lists the data fields included (method, URL, status, timing). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling log tools like get_console_logs, which handle console messages rather than network traffic.

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 when to use the tool—when network request details are needed—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain when not to use it. The 'Chrome only' constraint provides a platform-level restriction, but there is no guidance comparing this tool to other browser automation or logging tools.

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