get_network_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that clear=true empties the log, which is important, and describes filtering behavior. It doesn't cover rate limits or auth, but for a read operation, this is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds information: what is returned, optional parameters, and usage context. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: return structure, optional filters, clearing behavior, and usage. It is complete for a simple read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond schema by explaining url_filter is a plain-substring filter (not regex) and that clear=true empties the log. This clarifies usage beyond what the schema 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 specifies the verb (return), resource (network requests on a session), and details what fields are included (URL, HTTP method, status, resource type, size). It distinguishes from siblings like get_interaction_log by focusing on network requests.

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 ends with 'Use to see which API calls fired and their status when debugging,' providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling tools like wait_for_network or intercept_network have different purposes; the description implies debugging use.

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