get_td_node_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important nuances: hasErrors=false does not imply health, and the tool only reads error/warning streams, not exceptions from Script OPs. This goes beyond a simple read operation, revealing limitations. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but for a tool like this, the key behaviors are well documented.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds critical caveats. There is no fluff or repetition. It is succinct yet comprehensive, covering both what it does and what it doesn't.

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?

Given the tool complexity (hierarchical error checking) and no output schema, the description provides essential context: what streams are checked, what is excluded, and how to interpret results. It also includes examples of error types. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the response without surprise.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are described in the schema (e.g., nodePath, limit, detailLevel, responseFormat). The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't elaborate on how limit affects output or how detailLevel changes the report, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 it checks errors and warnings on a node and its descendants, with a specific verb (check) and resource (node errors/warnings). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_td_info (which likely provides general info) and get_td_nodes (listing nodes). The examples of missing files, dangling references, and shader compile failures add precision.

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 implicitly tells when to use it: when you need to check for errors/warnings on a node hierarchy. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., for fetching node properties, use get_td_node_parameters) or alternatives. It does warn against misinterpreting results, which is helpful, but doesn't reference sibling tools or exclusion scenarios.

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