failed_requests

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add real value by describing what is returned (failure reason, and the initiator when the HAR records it). It says nothing about ordering, whether limit truncates silently, or how secrets are handled in returned URLs/headers, all of which matter for a diagnostic listing tool with no readOnly/destructive hints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a tight parenthetical enumeration; every clause adds information about what counts as a failure. Slightly dense but no filler.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be re-explained, and the failure taxonomy is thorough, so core semantics are covered. The remaining hole is input-side: with three undocumented parameters and no sibling routing, an agent can identify the tool but not confidently supply arguments or choose it over find_requests.

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% and the description never mentions any of the three parameters. The required 'path' parameter in particular is undefined — an agent must guess that it is the location of a HAR file. The significance of include_secrets for a tool that returns the initiator is not explained either, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List failed requests') and then defines the exact inclusion criteria: HTTP 4xx/5xx, status 0 cases (blocked, cancelled, offline), and browser-flagged errors such as net::ERR_BLOCKED_BY_CLIENT. That is far more precise than the name alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling find_requests, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two is the right entry point for a status-4xx query.

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 enumerated failure categories imply when this tool is applicable (diagnosing failed loads) but no explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or alternative tool is ever named among the six siblings. Usage must be inferred from what the filter set covers rather than stated.

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