list_network_requests

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, open-world read operation. The description adds useful scope and a chaining hint, but it does not say what order results are returned in, how many are returned by default, or whether only responses are included.

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 short and front-loads the main scope before filtering and chaining details. The phrase 'Use the `i`' is slightly cryptic, but overall the structure is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details are less necessary, and annotations cover safety. However, with all three input parameters undocumented in the schema, the description should do more to explain limit behavior and the request-versus-response scope.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully explains url_pattern as a regex and resource_type with example values, but leaves limit completely unclarified and does not specify default or ordering semantics.

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 specific resource and scope: recent network responses of the current tab. It also names filtering dimensions and a follow-up relationship with get_response_body, though it does not explicitly resolve the name's 'requests' wording versus the description's 'responses' wording.

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?

It gives clear context for use: inspect recent tab network responses, filter by URL regex/resource type, then use the returned index with get_response_body to read an API reply. It does not name exclusions or compare against siblings like console_logs or evaluate.

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