native-network-logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses several behavioral traits: the tool returns a status field that can be 'restart_required', 'service_stale', 'connect_pending', or 'init_failed', each with a specific recommended action (e.g., restart app, restart server, wait, or re-boot simulator). It also explains that non-connected or non-running apps are returned as statuses rather than failures, and that certain failures (Apple system app rejection) are terminal and should never be retried. This goes beyond a simple description and provides concrete operational guidance, enhancing transparency significantly.

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 quite long but well-structured: it starts with the purpose, then differentiates from sibling, provides a use case, and then dives into status handling. While it's verbose, every section serves a purpose—especially the detailed status handling which is critical for correct usage. It front-loads the core purpose and comparison, then provides valuable conditional logic. It's not overly redundant, and the length is justified by the complexity of the tool's response statuses.

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 complexity (handling various statuses, failures, and retry logic), the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, how to interpret different statuses, and what failure scenarios look like. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly states the return structure: { status, count, events } and lists what each event contains (URL, method, status code, headers, and timing). This provides enough information for an agent to fully utilize the tool without further documentation.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for all four parameters (udid, bundleId, clear, limit) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add much param detail beyond the schema, but it does provide context on how the tool uses them (e.g., 'Clear the log after reading' and 'Maximum number of events'). Given the high schema coverage baseline is 3, the description's mention of limit default of 50 and the status handling provides slight added semantics, justifying a 4.

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 the tool retrieves network requests captured at the NSURLProtocol level, clearly distinguishing it from the JS-level network inspector (view-network-logs). It specifies the resource (network requests), the scope (native-level, all traffic including native modules and background transfers), and explicitly names the sibling alternative, making it unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: when needing to inspect native-level HTTP traffic invisible to JS fetch interception. It also contrasts with an alternative tool (view-network-logs) and gives a clear use case. Additionally, it details action paths for various status values (restart_required, service_stale, connect_pending, init_failed) including when to avoid restating the tool or restart the server, and explains that not-connected or not-running app cases come back as statuses, with separate failure scenarios (system app rejection, missing host dependency, invalid udid). This is comprehensive usage guidance.

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