Network log

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

With readOnlyHint=true already annotated, the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds some context about the output (status, size, duration, id) but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like pagination limits, timeouts, or how the log is captured. The description adds minimal extra value beyond the annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately mentions the linkage to browser_request_detail. Every part contributes to understanding, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job hinting at the output format (list with status, size, duration, and an id). It also covers the main filtering options. However, it doesn't mention the default limit or that results may be truncated, which the schema covers but the description doesn't reinforce. Still, it is fairly complete for a list 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 all parameters are already described in the schema. The description mentions filtering by URL substring or failure status, which aligns with the schema but adds no new meaning beyond it. For example, it doesn't explain the 'failed' vs '4xx/5xx' distinction beyond what the schema already does, keeping this at baseline 3.

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 the tool lists network requests with specific attributes (status, size, duration) and differentiates itself from browser_request_detail by noting each line carries an #id for that tool. It's a specific verb+resource with a clear scope, distinguishing it from its siblings.

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 this tool by mentioning that each line has an id for browser_request_detail, suggesting that this is for a list view while the detail tool is for individual requests. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this for lists, use browser_request_detail for details' or mention any exclusion criteria, so it falls short of explicit guidance.

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