network_get_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool gets a summary of intercepted requests, with no mention of side effects, authorization needs, or that it is read-only. This is insufficient for a tool that likely interacts with a network interception state.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's function with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise.

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 tool has three optional parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context, such as the return format or that it only works when interception is active. The current description is too minimal.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 '获取已拦截的所有请求列表摘要' clearly indicates the tool retrieves a summary of all intercepted requests, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'network_get_request_detail' and 'network_find_login_request'. However, the lack of an English description might hinder multilingual agents.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'network_get_request_detail' or 'network_find_login_request'. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., interception must be enabled) or exclusions.

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