export_har

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must alone convey safety and side effects. It states the export behavior but does not explicitly say it is read-only or describe error behavior for invalid session IDs. The scope 'all network requests' adds some context, but transparency is limited.

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 are used, with the action and output format front-loaded. The second sentence lists practical use cases. No redundant or filler wording.

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 simple export tool, the description covers the output format (HAR 1.2 log) and use cases. It is missing an explicit note about whether the session must be active or if there are side effects, but overall it is sufficient for such a targeted 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?

The schema has one required parameter 'session_id' with only 'Session ID' as description. The tool description ties the session concept via 'during the session' but does not elaborate further. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds marginal semantic value.

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 specific verb 'Export' and the resource 'all network requests captured during the session', with a defined output format 'HAR 1.2 log'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_page_state or inspect_storage, which target different data.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'analyzing network performance, finding slow requests, and debugging API calls'. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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