list_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists logs with optional filtering/pagination. It does not disclose whether it is a safe read operation, what response format to expect, any rate limits, or side effects. The word 'List' implies non-destructive behavior, but no details are given.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action immediately and includes key features. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain what the response will contain (e.g., an array of logs, metadata only), nor how the optional parameters work together. With no annotations and no output schema, a bit more detail about return behavior would improve completeness, but the core functionality is clear.

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 all 5 parameters with individual descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the high-level concept of 'filtering and pagination' but does not provide additional parameter-level semantics beyond what is in the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List HTTP request logs' — a specific verb+resource pair. It is clear that this tool lists request logs, distinguishing it from get_request (singular) and list_logs (general logs), though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The mention of 'optional filtering and pagination' adds useful scope.

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 implies usage: use this tool to list HTTP request logs, with optional filtering/pagination. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_request, list_logs, or get_error_requests, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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