list_network_requests

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'List captured network requests' implying read-only operation, but does not clarify scope (current page vs. session), side effects, or limitations (e.g., whether requests persist after navigating). The return format is described, but behavioral traits are lacking.

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 well-structured with args and returns sections, concise at about 10 lines. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. Slightly verbose due to listing each parameter, but acceptable.

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 5 optional parameters, no required, and existence of an output schema, the description covers all parameters and return info. It implies the need for prior network capture, which is appropriate. However, it doesn't explain relationships with sibling tools like 'network_capture' or 'get_network_request', which would enhance completeness.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden. It provides clear, meaningful descriptions for each parameter with examples (e.g., 'url_contains_domain: Convenience domain filter (e.g. ''nmpa.gov.cn'')'). This adds significant value beyond schema titles, though it could include constraints or allowed values.

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 'List captured network requests with optional filters', specifying the verb and resource. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like 'get_network_request' (single request) and 'network_capture' (capture action), but does not explicitly contrast them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists filter parameters, implying usage for filtered listing, but fails to mention when not to use it or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., network capture must be active).

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