get_network_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says '获取' (get) and provides filter types, but does not mention side effects, permissions, whether it makes additional network requests, or any operational caveats.

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 concise, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and adding the filter_type hint in the second. Every word contributes useful information with no filler.

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 the tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and filter options, but it lacks behavioral caveats and explicit guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by listing filter_type options (xhr|fetch|all) and implies that url refers to the target page through '页面'. However, url semantics are implicit rather than explicitly stated.

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 states '获取页面网络请求日志' (get page network request logs) with a clear purpose '用于 API 发现' (for API discovery), making the verb, resource, and intent explicit. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scrape_url or crawl_site, which focus on page content rather than network logs.

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 context by stating it is for API discovery, which tells the agent when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer scrape_url or crawl_site.

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