Network requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that headers are never captured and sensitive URL query values are redacted, which are important privacy/behavioral traits an agent needs to know. It does not describe pagination or exact return format, but the output schema is absent and the description covers the key behavioral constraints.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds two important constraints (no headers, redacted query values). Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 read-only, idempotent list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what is returned, what is excluded, and what is redacted. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the exact response structure or ordering, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, this is acceptable.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (limit, target_id, url_filter) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns recent network requests with specific fields (method, URL, status, MIME type, failures), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by noting what it does not capture (headers) and what is redacted (sensitive URL query values). This makes it easy for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and 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 when to use this tool: when network request details are needed, and it clarifies exclusions (headers never captured, sensitive query values redacted). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context signals and sibling list (screenshot, list_targets, dom_snapshot, query_dom, console_logs) make the use case reasonably clear.

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