List network requests

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral constraints: automatic collection, retention limited to 1000 requests, URL truncation to 150 characters, and the presence of ids in square brackets. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's limits.

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 compact paragraph of four sentences. Each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, automatic collection, main use case, and retention/truncation limits. No redundant noise.

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 moderate complexity and the rich schema (5 params, all described) plus an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage patterns, and key behavioral limits. It also links to the companion tool get_network_request for the full workflow. Nothing essential is missing.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description adds usage patterns, such as the recommended resource_types filter and how to use the output id to call get_network_request. This gives the agent practical parameter guidance beyond the schema, though it doesn't elaborate on pagination (which the schema already covers).

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 opens with a clear verb ('List') and resource ('network requests the selected page has made'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_network_request' by explaining that this tool lists requests while the other reads response bodies. The phrase 'main use is finding the JSON API a page calls' further clarifies its specific 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 explicitly tells the primary use case (finding JSON API calls) and how to execute it (filter with resource_types=['XHR','Fetch'], then pass id to get_network_request). It also contrasts with DOM scraping and mentions that collection is automatic, unlike console capture, guiding when this tool is appropriate.

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