List Bruno requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It handles this well for a read-only list tool by explicitly stating that it returns request paths, names, types, and HTTP metadata when available, and by avoiding destructive or write semantics. Minor operational details like pagination or empty-result behavior are not disclosed, but the core behavior is clear.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, followed immediately by the key return information, so an agent can quickly determine what the tool offers.

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 rich schema and the absence of an output schema, the description usefully states the kind of data returned. It is sufficiently complete for a list-style tool, though it could be stronger with an explicit contrast to bruno_search_requests.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters clearly, including collection path semantics and filter behavior. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond this, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a clear verb ('List and search') and resource ('requests in a Bruno OpenCollection collection'), and it specifies the returned data (paths, names, types, HTTP metadata). However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling bruno_search_requests, whose purpose likely overlaps.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bruno_search_requests or bruno_get_request. It also fails to clarify whether this tool's search behavior is a substitute for the dedicated search sibling or only a lightweight filter.

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