net_failures

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully defines what counts as 'failed' (4xx/5xx or CDP-level) and promises error detail, which is real behavioral scope. However, it does not disclose whether listing consumes the failure buffer, is strictly read-only, or how session-scoped results behave — side-effect traits that matter in this tool family.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the criteria in a parenthetical. No filler; 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?

Adequate for a simple list tool: it defines the function and failure criteria. But with no annotations and no output schema, an agent cannot know the return shape beyond 'error detail', the role of sessionId, or how this tool differs operationally from net_list/net_pending. Minimum viable with clear gaps.

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 50%: 'since' is well-documented in the schema, but 'sessionId' has no description anywhere. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema and does not compensate for the undocumented sessionId.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('failed network requests'), and precise inclusion criteria ('4xx/5xx status or CDP-level failure') plus what is returned ('error detail'). This differentiates it from siblings like net_list (all requests) and net_pending (pending requests) without needing their schemas.

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 failure criteria and 'with error detail' imply when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternatives (net_list, net_pending, net_get) apply to different diagnostics. In a family with eight net_* siblings, explicit routing would help.

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