inspect_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool renders a page and inspects network calls, and mentions that include_types controls content type. However, it does not explain broader details such as whether this triggers side effects, how many requests are captured, how responses are truncated, or what the output structure contains.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose before expanding on when and why to use this tool. Every sentence earns its place, including the rationale about cleanliness, cost, and resilience to redesigns.

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?

The description provides a strong strategic context but lacks enough operational detail to fully guide an agent invoking this tool. Although the output schema reduces some need to describe return values, the six parameters are mostly undocumented, and there are no annotations to fill the gap. Important context like save_as behavior, wait_for semantics, and max_body_chars limits is absent.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only explains one parameter, include_types ('widen beyond JSON'), and says nothing about the semantics or typical values of url, save_as, wait_ms, wait_for, or max_body_chars. The value added beyond schema is minimal.

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's function: 'Render a page and report the API calls it makes, with their JSON responses.' It uses a specific verb and resource combination and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fetch_page and extract_by_selector by focusing on discovering network endpoints rather than fetching or parsing pages directly.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool 'when a page is hard to scrape' and suggests the follow-up action 'fetch the endpoint it reveals.' It contrasts the approach with parsing rendered markup, noting it is 'cleaner and far cheaper,' but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for contrast.

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