Network Inspector: Analyze

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context that the tool aggregates the buffer into rollups, requires Network Inspector enabled, and returns summary counts. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph of three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main action and includes essential details like filter compatibility and prerequisites.

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 adequately explains the return values (counts by various categories) and notes the prerequisite (Network Inspector enabled). Although there is no output schema, this covers the main aspects needed for an agent to decide to use the 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 description coverage is 100%, and the description merely repeats that the tool accepts the same optional filters as a sibling tool. It does not add deeper semantic meaning beyond what the schema 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 verb 'aggregate' and the resource 'captured buffer into hotspots and rollups', listing specific outputs like counts by event type, HTTP status class, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_inspector_list_events by stating its purpose to 'orient on a session before drilling into individual events'.

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 says 'Use this to orient on a session before drilling into individual events', providing clear context for when to use it. It also notes that it accepts the same filters as network_inspector_list_events, hinting at sibling differentiation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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