Search Network Calls

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It states the return format (XML with optional headers and body details). However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only or if any state changes occur. For a search tool, this is minor; still, it could be more explicit about non-destructiveness.

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?

Two efficient sentences. The first sentence states the action and matching method; the second gives usage guidance and return format. No fluff.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and differentiation. However, it does not summarize the extensive filtering capabilities (e.g., status codes, method, resource type) which could help an agent understand the full scope. Still, the schema provides those details.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only mentioning that headers and body can be included optionally. It does not clarify parameter usage or relationships further.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches network calls by URL pattern using substring or regex. It distinguishes from sibling list_network_calls by specifying that this tool filters by URL pattern, while the sibling is for browsing all 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?

Explicitly says when to use: when you know part of the endpoint URL and want just those calls. It also provides alternative: use list_network_calls to browse all traffic. This gives clear decision criteria.

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