view-network-logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits. It details the returned data (method, URL, status, size, duration), pagination (up to 50 entries per page), platform-specific differences (React Native vs Chromium), and failure cases.

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 concise (about 100 words) and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then provides details about the output, platform differences, usage guidance, and failure conditions without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (paginated list with fields). It also covers purpose, usage context, failure modes, and platform variations, making it complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra context beyond the schema, such as mentioning that each page contains up to 50 entries (relevant to pageIndex) and that port is ignored on Chromium.

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 retrieves captured network requests from the running app. It distinguishes from related sibling tools like view-network-request-details by noting that each entry includes a requestId for further details.

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 usage context: 'Use when inspecting outbound HTTP traffic or debugging API calls in the running app.' It also mentions failure conditions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternative tools.

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