get_network_errors

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool returns network errors; it does not state what form the errors take, whether it requires a pathname, or how it relates to 'network failures'. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and object, earning its place without unnecessary words.

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 and vague parameter semantics, this description is insufficient for an agent to understand what to expect from the call. The ambiguity with sibling tools like 'inspect_network_failures' further reduces completeness, leaving essential questions unanswered.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explicitly mention the 'pathname' parameter. The phrase 'for an internal page' only weakly hints at the parameter's purpose, without explaining its default value or format.

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 ('Return') and resource ('network errors') for an internal page, making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'inspect_network_failures', which sounds nearly identical, so it misses the top score.

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 versus alternatives like 'get_console_errors' or 'inspect_network_failures'. The description gives no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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