read_network_errors

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool lists failed network responses and frames them as design-relevant, but it does not mention whether it requires a loaded page, whether it reads the current session only, or what side effects (if any) exist. This is a read-only listing tool, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and result, and the second provides practical value. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool, the description gives enough context to understand what the tool does and why it matters. It does not specify return format, ordering, or whether the network log is scoped to the current page, but the low complexity and simple schema make those omissions acceptable.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a default and a description ('Max entries.'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('failed requests and HTTP 4xx/5xx responses'), making the tool's purpose clear. It also adds a practical use case (catching missing fonts, images, and stylesheets) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like read_console.

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 implies when to use the tool—when investigating silent design degradation from missing assets—but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not mention alternative tools or conditions for choosing this over read_console or audit_design.

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