Read a session's network calls

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: indices are stable for the session, only oldest calls age out, and a stale index errors rather than silently returning a different call. It also discloses that held credential values are replaced with placeholders in output, which is important for interpretation.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and operational detail following. It is on the long side and slightly paragraph-heavy, but nearly every sentence carries load; a minor trim would make it 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?

For a 7-parameter, two-operation tool with no output schema, the description covers both operations' return shapes (detail returns method, url, request/response bodies), the staleness edge case, the capture prerequisite, and credential redaction. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With 71% schema coverage the schema already documents most parameters, but the description adds meaning: operation semantics, that query/method filter the search results, and that index refers to the stable call index from a prior search. It does not mention the offset/max_chars pagination behavior of the search window, leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (search/read the network requests the live page made) and frames the payoff against scraping HTML, which clearly separates it from siblings like writ_scrape or writ_crawl_site. It also names the two operations the tool supports, so an agent knows the tool's surface without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use workflow: if nothing is captured, run capture_network via writ_browser_act first, and to catch a POST, trigger the action then capture. It also routes output to writ_browser_compose's define_function via from_index, so the agent knows where this tool sits in the broader flow.

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