cdp_network_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that the tool lists requests already saved on disk, defaults to the last 50 summaries, and that include_body/include_headers are used to read the JSON files. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't disclose error cases or explicitly state read-only nature.

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 main purpose, and every sentence provides essential information: what the tool does, the default behavior, how to access full content, and the capture prerequisite. There is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the filter parameters (method, status, url_contains, resource_type) and does not describe the return format. The description provides some context about default behavior and prerequisites but leaves significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 13%, and the description only adds meaning for include_body/include_headers and the default limit. The parameters method, status, url_contains, and resource_type are left completely unexplained in both the schema and the description, so the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 starts with 'List requests already saved on disk,' which is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly states what the tool does. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like cdp_network_start and cdp_network_stop by focusing on reading already-saved data rather than capturing it.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool by stating 'Capture must have a dir (from cdp_connect capture_dir or cdp_network_start),' implying that this tool is used after a capture has been set up. It also gives guidance on using include_body/include_headers to read JSON files, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when-not-to-use scenarios.

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