get_network_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses buffering and cursor-based pagination, which are key behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on data retention, rate limits, or what happens when no events are available, but for a read-only tool it is fairly 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key mechanism. Every word earns its place, with no fluff.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, how pagination works with sinceCursor, or the effect of filters like phases and methods. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions cursor-based pagination, which hints at 'sinceCursor' and 'limit', but does not explain any of the 8 parameters (sessionId, phases, methods, statuses, urlContains, sources). The agent gets no semantic help beyond the schema structure.

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 'Read', the resource 'buffered network request/response/error events', and the mechanism 'cursor-based pagination'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_logs and get_errors by focusing on network events.

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 retrieving network events but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_logs for logs, get_errors for errors). No exclusions or context are given.

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