net_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real value: ordering ('most-recent-last'), a hard cap ('capped by limit (default 50)'), and the non-truncation guarantee ('never silently truncated'). However, it is silent on the return shape, session requirements, and whether this is a safe read-only operation.

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 and roughly 20 words, with the verb+resource front-loaded, followed by ordering, then filters, then the cap guarantee. Every clause earns its place, and the non-truncation promise is stated without waste.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without knowledge of the result format, which matters for deciding whether to call net_get for details. The 8-parameter surface and the dense cluster of net_* siblings also warrant at least one sentence of cross-tool guidance, which is absent.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters (type, limit, since, method, onlyXhr, urlIncludes), including the detailed enum semantics for 'since'. The description adds nothing beyond restating the limit default, and the two undocumented parameters (status, sessionId) remain unexplained — though they are fairly self-explanatory.

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 specific verb and resource — 'List captured network requests for a session' — and adds useful detail like ordering ('most-recent-last'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools like net_get, net_failures, or net_pending, so differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over its net_* siblings (net_failures, net_pending, net_get, net_ws) or when not to use it. 'Filterable' hints at the filtering use case, but there are no exclusions, conditions, or alternative recommendations.

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