list_network_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses a useful scope constraint (requests since the last navigation), but omits whether the call is read-only, whether it requires an open page, pagination behavior, or how includePreservedRequests widens the window to the last 3 navigations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere rather than being genuinely complete.

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?

Five optional parameters, 40% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations leave the description far too thin. It says nothing about defaults, result format, or the sibling get_network_request, so an agent lacks what it needs to invoke this confidently.

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 only 40%: pageIdx, pageSize, and resourceTypes are undocumented, and the description adds nothing about pagination, resource-type filtering, or the includePreservedRequests flag that directly modifies the stated scope. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lists'), a specific resource (requests), and a temporal scope ('since the last navigation'), so the agent knows what it returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_network_request (singular), leaving the agent to guess which one to call for a known request.

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?

There is no indication of when to prefer this over get_network_request, nor of any prerequisites such as an active/selected page. The only contextual cue ('since the last navigation') is descriptive of output, not of usage conditions.

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