Get Network Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the tool is safe for repeated use. The description adds value by specifying the source (Proxyman) and purpose (correlating with UI state), but does not elaborate on rate limits, data volume, or other behavioral aspects beyond what annotations cover.

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 long, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It efficiently communicates purpose, filtering options, and usage context.

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 has 4 parameters, a high annotation coverage, an output schema, and is a read-only retrieval tool, the description covers purpose, source, filtering capability, and usage correlation with UI state. No critical gaps are present.

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?

All 4 parameters are fully described in the input schema with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description text mentions filtering by URL path, which aligns with the filterPath parameter, but does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves HTTP/HTTPS network transactions from Proxyman, with filtering capability. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'network transactions' are specific, and the mention of 'SDUI or analytics endpoints' distinguishes it from sibling network verification tools that focus on conditions rather than raw data.

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 indicates the tool is used to correlate network state with UI state and suggests filtering by URL path for specific endpoints. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly name alternatives like verify_network_* tools, though the context implies it for raw log retrieval vs. verification.

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