list_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 the ordering behavior ('newest first') and mentions optional filtering, but it does not state whether listing modifies or clears captured requests, nor does it describe the return payload format. For a read-only list operation this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 front-loads the verb and resource, includes ordering info, and lists filters without redundancy. Every word earns its place; no wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify what the tool returns (e.g., full requests, summaries, or identifiers). It does not mention the return format or how it relates to sibling tools like get_request or replay_request. For a simple tool this is a notable gap, though the parameter schema and tool name provide some context.

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 100% since each parameter has a clear description. The description's mention of 'method, path substring, and count' adds little beyond the schema, as it only paraphrases the existing parameter documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('captured requests') plus a key ordering detail ('newest first'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_request (single request), wait_for_request (waiting), and clear_requests (deletion).

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 for listing requests and mentions optional filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_request or wait_for_request, nor does it exclude any cases. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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