Network Inspector: HTTPS CA Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe, side-effect-free nature is established. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that the returned snippet is needed to trust the proxy and enable HTTPS decryption, which is useful for the agent to advise the user. It does not contradict 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first lists exactly what is returned, the second gives the precise condition for using it. The information is front-loaded and every word contributes.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description specifies the three return components (fingerprint, proxy host:port, BrightScript snippet) and their purpose. For a zero-parameter informational tool, this is enough for an agent to know what to expect and how to use the result.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms an empty object with 100% coverage. The description, therefore, doesn't need to document any parameter behavior, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and names the exact resource objects: 'CA fingerprint, proxy host:port, and the BrightScript snippet.' It also states the purpose—making HTTPS request/response bodies visible to the Network Inspector. By referencing network_inspector_list_events, it helps distinguish this tool from that sibling.

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 gives an explicit conditional trigger: 'Use when network_inspector_list_events shows TLS handshakes but no decrypted HTTP bodies.' This is a clear when-to-use signal. It doesn't name an alternative tool, but it doesn't need to since no other tool appears to fill this role; the condition is sufficient.

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