view-network-logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains platform-specific behavior (React Native vs Chromium), data fields in the returned list, pagination, and failure conditions. No contradictions.

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?

The description is well-structured, front-loading the purpose and return format. It is concise with about 8 sentences, each adding unique information, but could be slightly tighter.

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 adequately describes the paginated list and its fields. It covers platform specifics, failure conditions, and links to a related tool. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions port is for RN only and pageIndex for pagination, but the schema already captures these details.

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 retrieves captured network requests and provides details on the returned data. It also distinguishes from view-network-request-details by mentioning requestId for full details, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling native-network-logs, which suggests similar functionality.

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 advises using the tool when inspecting outbound HTTP traffic or debugging API calls, and notes failure conditions. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare to alternatives like native-network-logs.

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