List network requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in any structured field: recording begins when the browser session opens, so requests before that are not captured. It stops short of describing filtering defaults (static assets excluded) or the cursor mechanics.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core scope ('completed requests across page changes') front-loaded before the lifecycle caveat.

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?

An output schema exists and the parameter schema is fully documented, so the return shape and argument semantics need not be restated. The description covers scope and the recording-start caveat; only the static-vs-API default filtering could be surfaced earlier, but the schema handles it.

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%, with limit, after_id, url_pattern, and include_static all documented inline, including the next_cursor hand-off. The description only echoes the existence of IDs and pagination, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List completed requests') plus scope ('across page changes') and mentions IDs and pagination. It reads clearly enough to separate it from the singular browser_network_request, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'across page changes' hints this is the paged-list counterpart to fetching a single request, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of browser_network_request or the fetch tools as alternatives.

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