list_network_requests

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

With no annotations, the description clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and specifies return fields. It could mention if listing is limited or if filters combine with AND/OR, but the basic behavior is transparent.

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 introductory sentence followed by a bullet-style parameter list and a return line. Every line adds value, and the structure is clean and scannable.

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 presence of an output schema (implied by 'has output schema: true'), the description adequately covers return fields. It lacks details on filter combination logic and the scope of 'captured network requests', but overall is sufficient for a straightforward listing tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful details: 'substring filter', 'convenience domain filter', and examples for method/resource_type. This goes beyond parameter names and provides concrete guidance beyond 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 clearly states 'List captured network requests with optional filters', specifying the verb (list), resource (captured network requests), and qualifier (optional filters). It distinguishes from siblings like get_network_request (single request) and network_capture (capture control).

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 vs alternatives like get_network_request or network_capture. Usage is implied by the name and sibling tools, but the description lacks any direct comparison or when-not-to-use instructions.

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