godot_get_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain how errors are retrieved, what 'recent' means, whether the log_file parameter affects behavior, whether this is a read-only operation, or what side effects might occur.

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 redundancy. It could be slightly more informative, but as a concise statement it earns its place and is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what is returned and under what conditions the tool is useful. It mentions recent error information but leaves the return format, log_file semantics, and relationship to sibling tools unspecified, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description's mention of 'recent error info' hints at the log_file usage but does not add explicit parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('解析并返回') and resource ('最近的错误信息'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like godot_check_all, which may also report errors, so it loses one point.

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 given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as gdlint, gdformat, godot_check_all, or godot_export_validate. The description only states what it does, not when it is the appropriate choice or what prerequisites apply.

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