inspect_network_errors

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, whether logs are cleared, or if the page is reloaded. The minimal description leaves behavioral traits ambiguous.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could expand slightly on usage without losing conciseness.

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 should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of errors). It fails to do so, leaving the agent without information on how to use the output. Behavioral and parameter gaps compound the incompleteness.

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 75%, but the tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. The 'route' parameter remains undefined in both schema and description, requiring the agent to infer its purpose.

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 captures console logs (errors/warns), uncaught JS exceptions, and 4xx/5xx network failures. This matches the tool name and distinguishes it from siblings like screenshot_page and type_into_element.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., screenshot_page for visual state). The context signals indicate siblings, but the description does not leverage them.

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