native-network-logs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it enumerates possible statuses (restart_required, service_stale, connect_pending, init_failed), what each means, and what action to take. It also explains terminal failure cases such as Apple system apps and NATIVE_DEVTOOLS_NOT_CONNECTED, so an agent avoids retrying hopeless operations.

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?

It opens with a crisp statement of function and differentiation before moving into operational details. The longer status/failure sections are organized by status name, and each sentence adds a distinct recovery instruction, so the length is justified.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape ({ status, count, events } and event fields) and all practical status/failure branches. Combined with the high-coverage parameter schema, an agent has what it needs to invoke and react correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, with all four parameters already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the return envelope and event fields, but it does not need to repeat parameter meanings and does not materially extend parameter semantics.

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 names a specific resource ('network requests at the native NSURLProtocol level') and a specific action ('Retrieve'), then contrasts it with view-network-logs. It explicitly identifies coverage of native modules, Swift/Objective-C networking, and background transfers, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

It states 'Use when you need to inspect native-level HTTP traffic that is invisible to JS fetch interception' and names the alternative view-network-logs. It also provides status-by-status recovery guidance, including when not to retry/restart versus restarting the tool-server or simulator.

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