List failed network requests

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

Description discloses output format (JSON rows with specific fields) and clipping of url and errorText to 300 chars. Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds detail about ordering (oldest first) and inclusive transport errors. No contradictions.

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 sentences: first defines scope and ordering, second describes return format and clipping. Every word adds value; no redundancy or unnecessary details. Properly front-loaded with key information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description provides sufficient structure of returned rows. Covers filtering, ordering, and limit. Lacks mention of error conditions or performance, but for a list tool, it is adequately 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-described in schema. The description adds context about default values and transport errors always being included, but these are also present in the schema descriptions. Minimal additional meaning beyond schema.

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?

Title 'List failed network requests' and description 'List failed or notable network requests...' clearly state the verb (list) and resource (network requests in a session). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_session_console_errors by specifying network failures with HTTP status thresholds and transport errors.

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 explains the filtering condition (status >= statusGte, transport errors always included) and defaults, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_session_console_errors. Usage context is implied by name and siblings, not explicitly contrasted.

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