network

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the ordering (newest last), the exact filter semantics (only_failed keeps 4xx/5xx and transport errors), and the per-entry fields (method, url, status, resource, error, id). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and filter behavior; the second describes the output fields and the routing to network_detail. Every word earns its place.

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 two parameters and an output schema, the description covers ordering, filtering, output fields, and the relationship to network_detail. The only minor omission is an explicit note about the limit parameter's effect, but given the output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, this is not a critical gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It explains only_failed thoroughly ('keeps 4xx/5xx and transport errors'), but limit is left unexplained beyond its name and default. While limit is fairly self-explanatory, the description could have added a phrase like 'controls the number of entries returned.' The partial coverage earns a middle score.

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 network requests, newest last, and distinguishes itself from network_detail by noting the id can be passed there for headers/body. It is specific about the resource (network requests) and the verb (list/return), making it easy for an agent to select correctly.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool (to get a list of network requests, optionally filtered to failures) and points to the sibling network_detail for more detailed headers/body. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond network_detail, leaving a small gap in exclusion guidance.

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