assert_chaos_handled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the injection of chaos status, the evaluation dimensions (fallback UI, unhandled exceptions, survival), and implies a structured verdict. It adds context beyond the schema, though it stops short of detailing the exact verdict shape or side effects like browser navigation.

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?

Two focused sentences: the first describes the mechanism and verdict, the second gives a direct use case. No redundancy, front-loaded with the most critical information, and 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description compensates by summarizing the structured verdict (fallback UI, unhandled exceptions, survival). It covers the central use case and key behavior. It leaves some details—like the exact return fields—to inference, but for an assertion tool this is reasonably complete.

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 has 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions, including defaults and logic for expected_fallback_selector. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond a high-level flow, so it meets the baseline but does not significantly improve parameter understanding.

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 a specific action: injects a chaos HTTP status into matching requests, then returns a verdict on resilience. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing assertion/evaluation rather than just failure injection, naming the verdict components (fallback UI, unhandled JS exceptions, survival).

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 explicitly tells when to use: 'Use to answer: is the app chaos-resilient — does it show a recovery UI without throwing exceptions?' This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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