net_pending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the tool is a point-in-time read ('as of now') and scoped to in-flight requests, which is useful. It does not clarify whether the call blocks, whether websockets are included, or what happens when nothing is pending.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The core action, scope, and purpose are front-loaded and every word contributes.

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 listing tool this is mostly adequate, but the lack of any output schema and the absence of sessionId semantics leave some gaps. An agent can infer returns from 'List network requests', but it cannot easily know how sessions are targeted.

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 only 50%: the 'since' parameter has an enum and description, but 'sessionId' has no description beyond its type. The description itself mentions neither parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented sessionId.

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'), a clear resource ('network requests'), and a precise state ('still in flight') with an explicit purpose ('candidates for a hang'). This clearly separates it from siblings like net_list, net_failures, or net_wait.

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 phrase 'candidates for a hang' implies this is for hang investigation, and 'as of now' signals a snapshot rather than a waiter. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over net_wait or net_list, nor mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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