Get captured requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds value by noting 'Compact by default', optional detail via include_headers/include_body, and the ability to filter by URL regex and limit to avoid flooding. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond a simple 'returns requests'.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then quickly covers default behavior and options, every sentence contributing useful guidance.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description conveys the key return content (method, url, status), default behavior, and filtering/limiting options. It could mention the requirement of an active capture session, but overall it is adequate for a straightforward read-only retrieval tool.

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?

The schema leaves limit, include_headers, and include_body undocumented. The description compensates by explaining their purpose: detail options and limiting to avoid flooding. It also clarifies filter as URL regex, adding semantics for the half of parameters missing schema descriptions.

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 tool returns captured HTTP exchanges with method, URL, and status. It is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes itself from sibling network tools like network_start/stop/clear/mock which control capture rather than retrieve data.

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 usage by explaining return volume and filtering options, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention prerequisites like an active capture session.

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