http_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists recent requests but does not mention any side effects, read-only nature, data scope (e.g., session vs. persistent), or any limitations like pagination. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety cues.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, though it lacks depth. No unnecessary words, so it earns a 4 for 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?

With an output schema present, return format is covered. The description is sufficient for a basic list operation, but it leaves ambiguity around 'recent' (time scope) and does not explain the purpose of target_id or when to use this tool. Given the simplicity and schema completeness, it is adequate but not complete, scoring 3.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (limit and target_id). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and since the description doesn't introduce any nuance, it stays at 3.

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 'List recent logged HTTP requests' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (logged HTTP requests). It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools like http_search, which might also list requests. Since it names the verb and object clearly, it scores 4.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include http_search and http_get, but the description does not mention any exclusions or conditions. The agent has no clue if http_list is for a quick overview or if http_search is more appropriate for filtering.

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