requests_list

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

The description says 'List', which strongly implies a read-only operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. That is a contradiction between the description and the structured safety metadata. The description also adds no other behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 a three-word fragment with no structure or front-loaded detail. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than useful conciseness.

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?

For a tool with six undocumented parameters, no output schema, and contradictory annotations, the description is almost entirely incomplete. An agent lacks the information needed to invoke it correctly or understand its return behavior.

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?

All six parameters (sort, limit, search, filters, end_time, start_time) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no parameter information at all. It therefore gives no meaning for sorting, filtering, pagination, or time-range behavior.

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 a verb ('List') and a resource ('Api Requests'), so the basic action is identifiable. However, 'Api Requests' is ambiguous — it does not clarify whether these are logs, proxied API calls, audit records, or something else. It also does not distinguish this tool from the many other list/get siblings.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The many sibling list_* and get_* tools make routing ambiguous, and the description provides no context, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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