list_network_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool supports extensive filtering (by URL, method, status, etc.), sorting, or output format. The only hint about behavior is that it returns IDs, but the schema implies much richer functionality.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action. However, it may be too concise, sacrificing necessary detail for efficiency.

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 12 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how the filtering/sorting parameters interact with the returned data. An agent would need to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how parameters like detail or format affect the output or the returned IDs.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'network requests', and mentions that it returns IDs for another tool. While succinct, it conveys the core purpose without ambiguity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling listing tools like list_console_messages or list_pages.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions get_network_request as a companion tool but does not explain when to choose list_network_requests over other listing tools or how to use the returned IDs.

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