debug_find_error

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses a multi-step analysis process and names the kind of outputs produced, which is helpful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it mutates logs, or what side effects or prerequisites might exist, leaving important behavioral details ambiguous.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the core action and its expected artifacts. The [HIGH_LEVEL] prefix is slightly redundant but not harmful, and there is no wasted wording that would dilute the agent's understanding.

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 description does not explain return shape, prerequisites, or how the output should be consumed, and there is no output schema to compensate. With no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent is not fully equipped to know what the tool returns or how to combine it with the closely related debug_propose_fix workflow.

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%, so the input schema already documents the only parameter, errorQuery, as an optional filter text for Studio error logs. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond implying that the query is used to filter log searching, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb, resource, and outcome: analyzing Studio output logs, pinpointing error stack traces, identifying candidate script files and line numbers, and preparing diagnostic contexts. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like output_get_errors or debug_propose_fix.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The description implies its purpose (finding errors in Studio logs), but it does not clarify how it relates to output_get_errors, debug_propose_fix, or diagnostics_safe_repair, so an agent must infer the appropriate invocation context.

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