output_get_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'captured' suggests no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state whether retrieving errors clears them, requires an active Studio connection, or affects state.

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 communicates the operation, the data type, the source, and a key feature (full stack traces). There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key return detail (full stack traces). It could clarify the output format or ordering, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter, limit, including default, minimum, maximum, and a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given complete schema coverage.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('recent runtime errors and unhandled exceptions'), and the source ('Roblox Studio'). It also distinguishes itself from the broader sibling output_get by narrowing the scope to errors and exceptions with stack traces.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving runtime errors and unhandled exceptions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over related siblings like output_get or debug_find_error. It provides clear context but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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