Export HAR

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the output medium (a file on disk), the default destination behavior, that response bodies are opt-in, and that the return value is a path. It does not warn about file size or capture-window limits when bodies are included, which is the remaining gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and artifact, with the optional flag as a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted or repeated.

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 zero-required-parameter export tool with no output schema, telling the agent it returns a path is the key missing piece and it is present. Only a note on capture scope (which requests are 'captured') and the interaction with network_requests is absent.

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%, so tabId, bodies, and savePath are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mentions of 'optionally with response bodies' and 'returns its path' merely restate schema content, so baseline 3 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?

Names a specific verb and resource (exports captured tab requests) plus the concrete artifact format (HAR 1.2) and that a path is returned. It is distinguishable from siblings like network_requests or perf_trace by the word 'HAR', but it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for producing a HAR file after traffic has been captured. There is no statement of when to prefer it over network_requests/network_request, nor any prerequisite such as needing a session tab.

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