get_network_log

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

The description adds that entries include requestId for get_response_body, which is useful beyond the schema. But without annotations, it omits details like safety (read-only), authorization needs, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema, so description should explain return structure more. It mentions entries include requestId but not other fields. With 4 parameters, it's decent but incomplete for a full understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what schema provides, but the note about requestId aids understanding of output, not parameters.

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 clearly states the tool gets network requests from renderer pages (Network domain), specifying the resource and context. It distinguishes from siblings like get_event_log or get_console_logs by focusing on network requests.

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 mentions requests are recorded once a page tool attaches, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternatives like get_response_body for specific use cases.

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