sleeper_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about read vs. write semantics, whether the log accumulates across calls, or what the 'clear' and 'fetch' flags do. With a 'clear' parameter present, the absence of any mutation/reversibility note is a real 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?

Five words is not conciseness here but under-specification: for a nine-parameter tool the description is too sparse to be front-loaded around anything useful. There is no wasted filler, but there is also almost no content.

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 nine-parameter network-inspection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent would need: what is returned, how 'since'/'media'/'segment' filter results, and when a fetch vs. log read is intended. It is grossly incomplete.

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 only 11% (just 'profile'), so the description must compensate for nine largely undocumented parameters. It mentions no meaning for tab, url, body, clear, fetch, media, since, or segment, leaving most of the schema opaque.

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 phrase 'Per-tab request log or fetch' gestures at the resource (network requests) but never states a clear verb or action. The dangling 'or fetch' leaves it ambiguous whether the tool logs, retrieves, or fetches a URL, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like sleeper_media, sleeper_wait_xhr, or sleeper_api.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as sleeper_wait_xhr for waiting on a specific request. The agent is left to guess the intended scenario from the name alone.

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