network_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the stateful two-call pattern and the log scope ('since last call'). However, it omits the default clearing behavior (clear=true) and gives no indication of the response shape. These are meaningful gaps for an agent predicting side effects.

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 extremely compact, front-loading the essential function in the first phrase and following with the usage pattern. No wasted words or repetition of schema information. It is appropriately sized for its 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?

The tool has a non-obvious stateful flow, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should clarify what each call returns and any side effects. It explains the call pattern but not the response format or default clearing behavior. The schema covers parameter semantics, yet an agent still faces ambiguity about the first call's result.

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. Both parameters (clear and maxEntries) are already documented in the schema. The description adds general context about the log window but no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the resource (fetch/XHR entries) and the core behavior (captured since last call). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like console_log and cookies by content type. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'return', making the operation slightly implicit.

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 parenthetical 'call once to start, again after interactions' provides a clear, actionable call pattern and indicates when the tool should be invoked relative to user interactions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to know how to use it.

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