trigger_system_network_error

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

With no annotations, the description should carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the visible action (opening a browser, aborting requests) but does not mention permissions required, side effects beyond the browser opening (e.g., impact on the app under test), or whether the simulation is reversible or destructive. The agent has to infer the test nature from 'simulating'.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the usage question. No wasted words; it's appropriately sized for the tool.

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?

For a chaos engineering tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat sparse on behavioral context. It lacks guidance on required environment (test vs production), potential side effects, and safety considerations. The schema covers parameters, but the description should do more given the absence of annotations.

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 100%, with detailed descriptions for all 10 parameters, including the error_code enum. The description adds little beyond reinforcing that intercept_pattern and error_code are key, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (aborts requests, simulates failures) and resource (system-level network error codes), and clarifies it's for OS-level failures like unreachable hosts or access denied. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool to contrast, but the 'system-level' qualifier helps distinguish it from API-level or generic network simulations.

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?

It provides a clear usage scenario: 'Use to answer: does the app recover when the DNS resolution fails or the OS rejects a connection?' This tells the agent when to apply it. However, it does not mention any exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to use simulate_network_drop instead).

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