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, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: what is returned, the proxy trust purpose, and the practical effect of making HTTPS bodies visible. It also notes the 'sideloaded dev channel' prerequisite without contradicting the 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 returned items front-loaded and the use case following immediately. Every clause adds useful information; there is no filler, tautology, or restatement.

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 parameterless, read-only, idempotent helper, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool returns, why it is useful, and exactly when to call it. The named return items are sufficiently clear even without an output schema.

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 schema has zero parameters and schema_description_coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description appropriately reinforces that only fixed, parameterless information is returned.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the Dev Studio MITM CA fingerprint, proxy host:port, and the BrightScript snippet.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling network_inspector tools, and the reference to network_inspector_list_events establishes how it fits in the broader workflow.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when network_inspector_list_events shows TLS handshakes but no decrypted HTTP bodies.' This clearly identifies the situation and user goal, though it does not enumerate when-not-to-use conditions or explicitly name alternative tools.

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