devtools_network_failed

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the tool only returns failed requests, explains error conditions (status 0 means connection failed), and lists output fields. No contradictions or hidden side effects are omitted.

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 three sentences: purpose, use case, output fields. It is front-loaded with the core action, uses no filler, and every sentence adds value. Ideal length for a simple listing 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the output fields and purpose sufficiently. It lacks mention of potential pagination or limits, but for a filtered list tool this is minor. Overall adequate.

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% (both parameters documented in schema). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool returns 'network requests that FAILED — 4xx / 5xx status or DNS / connection errors.' This is a specific verb and resource, and the use case (detecting broken assets) further clarifies its purpose. The name itself distinguishes it from 'devtools_network_all'.

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 provides clear context on when to use: 'This is how the agent detects broken CSS files, missing JS bundles...' It implies usage for failure diagnostics but does not explicitly compare with siblings like 'devtools_network_all' or state when not to use.

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