browser_net_export_har

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Export full network activity log' but does not disclose if monitoring must be active, whether the tool modifies state, or if it is read-only. The description lacks crucial behavioral details.

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, front-loaded sentence with a helpful reference to browser_docs. Every part earns its place.

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?

Despite low complexity (single optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'full network activity log' includes, how it relates to monitoring, or what the HAR format entails. Relies on external browser_docs.

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% for the single parameter includeContent, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action (Export), the resource (full network activity log), and the format (HAR), distinguishing it from siblings like browser_net_get_requests which likely returns data differently.

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 mentions 'see browser_docs' for more details, implying the agent should consult docs for usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_net_get_requests or how it relates to monitoring tools.

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