trigger_system_network_error

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool aborts matching requests and simulates specific OS-level failures, which is transparent about the primary effect. However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., whether the page becomes non-interactive, whether the intervention is temporary) and does not warn about testing environments.

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 sentences; the first states the action and simulation type, the second gives a concrete test question. No redundant content or padding.

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 6 params and no output schema; the description conveys the core purpose but does not outline the end-to-end workflow (e.g., navigating to the URL, waiting, and evaluating the fallback selector). It gives the 'why' but not the full 'how', which the agent must infer from the schema.

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 describes all parameters fully (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'URL pattern' in passing and does not add details about format, units, or interplay between parameters beyond the schema.

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 ('Aborts') and identifies the resource ('requests matching a URL pattern') and distinguishes it by focusing on system-level network error codes that simulate OS-level failures, unlike siblings that simulate API or latency issues. The use-case question further clarifies unique purpose.

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 frames when to use it: to test app recovery from DNS resolution failures or OS connection rejections. It implies this tool is for OS-level network failures but does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so no exclusions.

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