Bundle overview

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

With no annotations, the description discloses internal behavior: prefers pre-computed semantics (schema 2/3) and falls back to scanning events for schema 1. This goes beyond basic read-only indication and helps agents understand performance implications.

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 efficiently convey purpose, internal behavior, and usage guidance. No redundant information; every phrase adds value.

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 no output schema, the description lists all major aggregates (page, capture window, network breakdown, errors, etc.) so agents know exactly what to expect. The fallback behavior adds completeness.

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% and the description adds no extra parameter details. The bundleId parameter is well-documented in the schema, so the description doesn't need to augment it.

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 provides 'high-level aggregates for a loaded bundle' and lists specific metrics (page, capture window, event counts, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects (e.g., find_errors, get_network_request).

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?

Explicitly advises to 'Use this first to orient before drilling in', giving clear usage context. While it doesn't list exclusions or alternatives, the guidance is strong enough to imply this is the starting point.

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