net_slow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only finished requests are included, orders them slowest first, and explicitly states the limit cap and that it is 'never silently truncated' – a useful behavioral guarantee. It does not mention read-only nature explicitly, but 'list' implies it, and no side effects are suggested. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a basic description.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose (list slow requests) and then provides essential defaults and behavior (cap, truncation). There is zero redundancy; 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should hint at the return structure, but it only says 'list' without describing item fields. It also omits any mention of sessionId, leaving its role ambiguous (optional vs. scoping). While the core behavior is clear, these gaps mean an agent may not know how to use sessionId or interpret results. Adequate but not complete.

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 67% (limit and thresholdMs described, sessionId not). The description reiterates defaults for limit and thresholdMs but adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it also mentions the 'never silently truncated' behavior tied to limit. However, sessionId is completely unaddressed in both schema and description, leaving a gap. The description adds slight value but does not fully compensate for the missing sessionId semantics.

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 specific action (list) and resource (finished network requests) with a precise filter (slower than a threshold). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like net_list (all requests), net_failures (failed), and net_pending (pending) by specifying 'finished' and the threshold criterion, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for retrieving slow finished requests but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools are named, and there is no guidance on choosing between this and net_list or other net_* tools. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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