get_network_logs

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

With no annotations, the description fully compensates by detailing side effects (clearing cache when 'clear' is true), prerequisites (active Chrome tab with network monitoring), and rate limits (none). It also describes the return type. No contradictions.

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 covering purpose, side effects, prerequisites, returns, rate limits, usage, and alternatives. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides complete context: side effects, prerequisites, rate limits, return format, and usage guidance. It leaves no major gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds high-level context about filtering and side effects but does not enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema. 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 'retrieves', the resource 'intercepted HTTP/REST requests and WebSocket frames', and mentions filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_console_logs by specifying network activity, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage scenarios ('audit API calls, debug network issues, inspect WebSocket traffic') and mentions external alternatives (DevTools, HAR export). However, it does not differentiate from internal sibling tools or explicitly state when to avoid using it.

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