node_errors_deep

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses traversal scope, result filtering ('Only nodes with a problem are returned'), and the defaults for path, max_depth, and max_nodes. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe failure behavior, but the core behavior is clear and constrained.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose up front followed by a lean parameter list. Every sentence adds information, with no filler or redundancy.

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 or annotations, the description explains the traversal, limits, and result filtering, which are the core essentials for invoking the tool. It does not detail the exact structure of the returned node data or error messages, nor edge-case behavior for invalid paths. These are minor gaps for a straightforward query tool.

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 has 0% coverage, and the description compensates fully by explaining all three parameters with types, defaults, and semantic meaning: path (root), max_depth (recursion limit), and max_nodes (visit cap). This is exactly the kind of semantic enrichment the schema lacks.

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 tool's function: 'Walk a whole subtree; report every node with cook errors, warnings, parameter-expression errors or script errors.' It uses strong verbs and identifies the exact resource and scope. The emphasis on 'whole subtree' distinguishes it from the shallow sibling node_errors.

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 usage for deep recursive error scanning but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like node_errors. No exclusions, prerequisites, or use-case context are given; the agent must infer from the name and description.

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