get_network_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns captured requests and is Chrome-specific, but does not clarify if the operation is read-only, whether logs are cleared, or what happens when no requests are captured. Basic but adequate.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. First sentence states core function; second sentence adds essential constraint. Every word serves a purpose.

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, the description mentions the returned fields (method, URL, status, timing). Could be improved by stating the return format (array of objects) and any side effects, but the three optional parameters are well-documented in schema. Adequate for a simple retrieval 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% with clear parameter descriptions (url_filter, method, limit). The description adds only the returned fields context (method, URL, status, timing) but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score applies.

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 returns captured XHR/fetch network requests with specific fields (method, URL, status, timing) and explicitly restricts to Chrome only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_console_logs or mock_response.

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 includes a browser constraint ('Chrome only') implying when not to use, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_console_logs or wait_for_network_idle. No when-not-to-use or specific context provided.

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