bw_list_requests

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, per-row backend enrichment cost, how top and created_from affect performance, and that default parameter values exist. This is highly 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 detailed but each sentence adds value. It could be slightly tighter, but it's well-structured and front-loaded with purpose and output details.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return content (request status, record counts, timestamps, TSN) and connects to sibling bw_get_request. No critical gaps.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful context beyond schema: explains top's performance impact, created_from as a cost-reducer, default status codes, and case-insensitivity of target. Adds value.

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 lists recent load requests of an InfoProvider from the runtime request monitor. It specifies return details like request status, record counts, timestamps, and internal request TSN, distinguishing it from siblings like bw_get_request (which takes the TSN as input) and bw_search (used to find the target technical name).

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 advises using bw_search first to find the target technical name, and provides performance guidance on using a narrow created_from window or small top. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear and helpful.

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