bw_list_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares read-only, discloses that each returned row triggers an expensive per-row cross-reference read on the backend, and clarifies that status/created_from reduce row count rather than per-row cost. This is non-obvious behavioral context an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with what it returns, then the chaining hint, then a clearly labled performance note. Dense but earns its sentences; the performance guidance is slightly repetitive of the top/created_from schema descriptions.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover return values, which it does (one entry per request with decoded status, record counts, timestamps, and the internal TSN). Combined with the performance and chaining guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by explaining that top bounds the result set and that created_from/status only help by returning fewer rows, not by making each row cheaper. This cost-model nuance goes beyond the schema text.

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?

Specific verb (List) + resource (recent load requests of an InfoProvider) + source (runtime request monitor), with the returned fields enumerated. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling readers like bw_get_request, bw_list_remodeling_requests and bw_search.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use bw_search first to resolve the target technical name, and states that the returned TSN is the input for bw_get_request, establishing the call chain. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over sibling list/get tools or state exclusions.

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