list_network_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: automatic connection and setup on first call ('automatically connects to the endpoint, infers the target, attaches only that target, enables Network on that target session, and starts collecting XHR/Fetch requests'), sorting order ('newest-first'), default pagination ('20 most recent requests'), and pagination controls. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but covers essential operational behavior well.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second covers sorting and pagination, the third explains the 'reqid' parameter, and the fourth details the automatic setup on first call. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for behaviors), but it remains efficient and clear.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, key behaviors, and some parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but the description could better address all parameters and potential side effects (e.g., what 'clear_existing' does). It's sufficient for basic use but has minor gaps for advanced scenarios.

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 adds meaningful context for several parameters: it explains 'page_size/page_idx' for pagination, 'reqid' for retrieving a single request's details, and implies filtering through 'resource_types' and 'url_filter' by mentioning 'XHR/Fetch requests' and general listing. However, it doesn't cover all 9 parameters (e.g., 'endpoint', 'include_preserved_requests', 'wait_ms', 'clear_existing' are not addressed), leaving some gaps in parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'List network requests for the currently selected miniapp target/session since MCP started monitoring it.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('network requests'), scope ('currently selected miniapp target/session'), and temporal boundary ('since MCP started monitoring it'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_request_initiator' or 'get_response_body' by focusing on listing requests rather than retrieving specific details.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to list network requests for a monitored miniapp target/session. It mentions using 'reqid to get a single request's full details,' which implies an alternative use case within the same tool rather than pointing to a different sibling tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'get_request_initiator' for initiator details), leaving some guidance implicit.

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