get_network_requests

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

Annotations already declare this a safe non-mutating read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the safety bar is largely met. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: response bodies are opt-in and bounded. It omits cursor/pagination behavior (afterSeq) and what happens when capture was never enabled.

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?

A single compact sentence with no waste and the key opt-in/bounded constraint front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the reason the usage and parameter gaps exist.

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 six-parameter tool with 17% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotation coverage of return shape, the description is thin. The capture-must-be-enabled prerequisite and the afterSeq cursor for paging through events are missing, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 17% (only targetId is documented), so the description must compensate and mostly does not. Only includeBodies/maxBodyChars are hinted at via "opt-in and bounded"; limit, afterSeq, urlPattern, and non-focused-window targetId semantics are undocumented in both places.

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?

"Read captured request, response, and failure events" names a specific verb and resource, and the three event kinds make it distinguishable from siblings like get_console_logs and get_javascript_errors. It does not, however, note that it only returns data when network capture has been turned on via typora_enable_debug_network_capture.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusions. The critical prerequisite (capture must be enabled first, per the typora_enable_debug_network_capture / typora_disable_debug_network_capture siblings) is left entirely implicit.

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