get_network_har_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining the tool's filtering behavior, data reduction capabilities, and return format ('Filtered HAR data structure with only matching requests'). It also mentions prerequisites ('works for VDC jobs with network capture enabled'). The main gap is lack of information about rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 well-structured with purpose statement, usage guidance, parameter documentation, and examples. While comprehensive, some sections could be more concise (e.g., the filter_category list is quite detailed). Overall, most sentences earn their place by providing essential information.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, parameters, and usage. The main gap is the lack of output format details beyond 'Filtered HAR data structure' - more specifics about the return structure would be helpful given the complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations. Each parameter gets clear documentation: 'job_id' is explained with context, 'filter_category' includes comprehensive enum values with examples, and other parameters have usage examples. The description adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieves and filters') and resources ('HAR file data from a Sauce Labs test job'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on network HAR file data, unlike tools like 'get_job_details' or 'get_log_json_file' which handle different job-related 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 clear context on when to use this tool ('for network capture enabled jobs') and offers guidance on filter usage ('intelligently filter requests to reduce data size and focus analysis'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among sibling tools like 'filter_har_data'.

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