locate_defects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds no behavioral context at all — not what a 'timeline error' is, what triggers it, or what the agent learns from calling this. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes nothing beyond them.

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 text is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — a two-word fragment carries no actionable information. Front-loading is irrelevant when there is essentially no content.

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 parameterless read-only probe the structured fields are simple and dedicated, so the bar is modest. Still, the description leaves the agent without any idea of what this returns or when it is the right tool, which is a real gap given the crowded sibling list.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline the schema carries the full parameter burden and the description has nothing to compensate for. No parameter meaning is missing.

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 is a two-word noun phrase, 'Ошибки таймлайна' (Timeline errors), with no verb at all — it does not say whether the tool locates, lists, reports, or repairs defects. It gestures at the resource domain (timeline defects) but never states an action, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish it from siblings like last_error, repair_hints, or design_audit.

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?

There is no usage guidance whatsoever: no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools. Nothing tells the agent what condition should trigger this call.

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