request_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation and gives no details about return format, pagination, default limit, ordering, or potential side effects. The phrase 'request journal' adds slight context but insufficiently discloses behavior.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with no wasteful words. It is appropriately concise for a simple listing operation, though it could be enriched with parameter context without becoming bloated.

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?

The tool has no output schema and optional parameters, so the description should explain return values, parameter effects, and any limits. It does none of this, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely and effectively invoke the tool.

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 compensate for parameter meaning, but it doesn't mention 'limit' or 'since' at all. The parameter names are somewhat suggestive, but 'since' remains ambiguous (e.g., timestamp vs. sequence ID), and no details are provided.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('requests from the WireMock request journal'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like request_get or request_count by specifying a list operation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus other request-related tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and sibling names.

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