correlate_dom_and_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: filtering out 'background polling and analytics pixels,' using a ±100ms timing window, and returning body snippets. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states the core action and return value, second describes filtering, third gives the use case and benefit. Front-loaded with the main purpose, no redundancy, appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly lists the return fields (request URL, status, body snippet, DOM nodes). It also provides timing details, filtering criteria, and a concrete use case. With a single required parameter and no additional configuration, this is fully complete.

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?

The schema covers the only parameter (trace_path) at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about how to use the parameter or its format beyond what the schema already states. This is acceptable because there is nothing missing.

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 uses a specific verb ('Joins') with a clear resource ('HAR network log and DOM snapshots') and states the output (triggering request URL, response status, body snippet, DOM nodes). It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on building an 'explicit causal chain' rather than just listing events.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use to diagnose race conditions and async rendering bugs.' It also explains the value in removing hallucination from causal questions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the usage context is strong.

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