network_get

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 explains ordering, the effect of limit, and the row-level linkage to network_get_detail, making the tool's behavior predictable. It does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive, but 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the cross-reference to network_get_detail is placed where it is most useful. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple list operation with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is returned, in what order, with what row identifier. It could additionally mention the default limit or behavior when no capture exists, but those are minor gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that `limit` applies to the most recent requests in capture order, which is not fully captured by 'Max rows to return.' The `filter` parameter is already well described in the schema.

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 verb ('List'), a specific resource ('captured network requests'), and meaningful qualifiers: capture order, a row limit, and an #id that links to network_get_detail. This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like network_get_detail and network_start.

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 makes the primary use case clear: list captured network requests in capture order. Mentioning that each row's #id is usable with network_get_detail provides indirect routing to the detail tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name other alternatives like intercept_log.

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