arc_get_network_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states 'get list'. It does not disclose that the tool returns cached requests from a monitoring session, that it may be empty if monitoring hasn't started, or any other behavioral aspects such as whether it requires an active monitoring session.

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?

Description is a single clear sentence, concise and front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could include more context without becoming verbose.

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 lack of output schema and the need for context, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that the tool returns an array of network request objects, that it requires an active monitoring session, or how the data is structured, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a list of monitored network requests. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('network requests'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like arc_start_network_monitor or arc_stop_network_monitor which manage monitoring state.

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 (e.g., after starting monitoring) or alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites like starting monitoring first, which is crucial given sibling tools arc_start_network_monitor and arc_stop_network_monitor.

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