list_network_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the key limitation that response bodies are not included and lists the metadata fields returned. While it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, 'List' strongly implies it, and the description adds context about CDP Network events. It does not contradict structured data.

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, front-loaded with action and resource, no filler. The second sentence adds a meaningful limitation without wasting words.

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's simplicity (4 optional filters, no output schema), the description provides essential purpose and return metadata. It doesn't detail ordering or pagination, but for a list operation with optional filters, it is adequately complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema parameters themselves; it only mentions 'timing/status fields' and 'encoded data length' which are return fields, not parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('captured network request metadata from CDP Network events'). It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_network_request, which retrieves a single request. The scope ('network request metadata') and exclusion of response bodies further clarify its role.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_network_request, nor does it mention when not to use it. It implies context (used for listing metadata, not bodies) but provides no direct guidance or alternative references.

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