network_fault_summarySummarize proxy connection counts and per-rule match/fault totals to verify injected network faults and confirm app traffic routes through the proxy.
Reports how many connections went through the proxy and, for the armed rules, how many each matched and faulted. A rule that faulted nothing means the app did not use the proxy or the host name is wrong.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read with no side effects, so the bar is lower. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful signal: what is counted (total proxy connections, per-rule matches and faults) and how to read a zero-fault rule as a likely misconfiguration.
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?
Two tight sentences. The core output description comes first, and the troubleshooting hint follows, so an agent gets the essential behavior immediately.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does: a total proxy connection count plus per-armed-rule matched and faulted counts. Adding an explicit note on when to run it relative to the start/set tools would make it complete.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies cleanly, and there is nothing misleading about the omission.
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: reports proxy connection counts and, per armed rule, matched and faulted counts. This clearly separates it from the sibling control tools (start/set/stop_network_faults) which configure rather than report.
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?
Mentions 'armed rules', implying this is consulted after rules are set, but never explicitly says when to call it versus siblings like compare_reports or find_suspects. The line about a rule that faulted nothing indicates a misconfigured host or unused proxy, which is useful diagnostic guidance even though it is about interpreting results rather than selecting the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.