Show Provider Errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('show') but doesn't explicitly state that no side effects occur, nor does it mention any permissions, rate limits, or output format. The description is too minimal to convey meaningful behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource. While it is under-specified, the conciseness itself is good—there is no wasted text.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should at least explain the filter's purpose and the nature of the errors returned. It does neither. The tool is simple, but the description leaves critical operational details unspecified.

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 single parameter 'filter' is completely undocumented in the schema, and the description makes no mention of it whatsoever. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but fails entirely, leaving the agent with no understanding of what values the filter accepts or how it affects results.

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 the verb 'show' and the resource 'errors from cloud provider calls,' making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on errors, which no other nanites tool mentions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling, so it doesn't fully capitalize on differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent receives no help in deciding between this and other nanites_* tools that might also relate to provider status.

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