get_network_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the output is a waterfall with requests, timing, size, and priority, but does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or prerequisites. Lacks detail on whether the analysis is real-time or cached.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action and output. It is concise with no wasted words, though a bit more detail could be added without harming conciseness.

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?

The tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema. The description gives sufficient context about the output content (waterfall with timing, size, priority). However, it does not explain the format of the waterfall, whether it includes all resources, or how to interpret the results.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not mention required fields, constraints, or default behavior.

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 exactly what the tool does: get a detailed network waterfall with timing, size, and priority. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_element_analysis or get_javascript_analysis.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is more appropriate than siblings like compare_pages or full_report.

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