network_get_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose without detailing side effects, failure modes, or whether it requires an active recording. The description does not mention if it returns a snapshot or if it consumes/clears the recorded requests, leaving ambiguity.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action, but it lacks any additional structure or context. While concise, it may be overly minimal given the tool's complexity, yet it is not verbose.

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?

Given the tool has six parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the return data looks like, whether it requires prior recording, or how it interacts with recording and clearing tools. An agent would need to infer these details from the schema and siblings, which is risky.

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 already describes all six parameters with 100% coverage, including filters like URL, limit, method, status, and hasError. The description does not add any additional semantics or clarify relationships between parameters beyond the schema. Since the schema is thorough, the description does not need to compensate, but it also does not provide extra value.

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 (get), the resource (recorded network requests), and the scope (for a tab). It differentiates from sibling tools like network_clear_requests and network_start_recording by indicating retrieval rather than mutation or recording. The word 'recorded' implies it accesses previously captured data, adding specificity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as network_list_mocks or network_clear_requests. It does not mention prerequisites like starting a recording session or that it only works for a specific tab's captured traffic. There is no indication of when this tool would be preferred over other network tools.

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