browser_har_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: export format (simplified HAR), content included, and automatic desensitization. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, file location, or error handling.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and key inclusions. It is concise with no wasted words, though a structured list might improve readability.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool produces but lacks detail on parameter interplay, output file naming/location, and how desensitization works. It adequately covers the essential aspects for a simple export tool.

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 documentation covers all 8 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate. It adds value on output format but not on parameter usage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool exports currently collected network records as a simplified HAR JSON file, listing included elements (headers, body summaries, status codes, time) and mentioning automatic desensitization. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_network (likely real-time view) and browser_network_detail (likely detailed raw data).

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?

Description implies use when a simplified HAR export is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_network or browser_network_detail. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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