listNetworkRequests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the return scope (method, URL, status) and pagination behavior, but does not mention potential side effects such as the 'clear' parameter which can clear data after reading. Since the schema documents this parameter, the omission is not severe, but the description alone does not fully disclose behavior for all options.

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 concise, consisting of three short sentences that each add value: what is listed, a pointer to details, and pagination. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundant wording.

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 schema covers all parameters and the description indicates the output fields and pagination, the tool is well-specified for its simplicity. There is no output schema, but the description partially compensates by stating what is returned. It lacks mentions of default filters or interaction with other sibling tools, but overall it is adequate.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond mentioning pagination (which relates to limit/offset), but it does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('network requests') and even specifies the fields returned (method, URL, status). It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool getNetworkRequest by pointing to it for details, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 says 'Use getNetworkRequest for details,' which provides a clear alternative and implies using this tool for listing/overviews. It also mentions pagination support, which is relevant when handling large sets. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool (e.g., when needing detailed request info) beyond that single alternative.

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