find_error_nodes

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 scan, but does not specify whether cooking is triggered, what side effects may occur, or how errors/warnings are reported. This lacks transparency for an operation that could potentially be expensive or have side effects.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient, but it is under-specified for a tool that should explain its scope and output. It earns a middle score because it is not verbose but sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of nodes with errors/warnings). It does not, and it also fails to place the tool within the broader context of node hierarchy inspection. The description is adequate for a trivial tool but incomplete for effective agent use.

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% description coverage and the description adds no meaning to the root_path parameter beyond its name and default. Although a single obvious parameter might seem self-explanatory, the description does not clarify the expected format, semantics, or impact of the root_path, leaving a gap that the description should fill.

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 purpose: scanning the node hierarchy for cook errors and warnings. It uses a specific verb ('scan') and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from tools like find_nodes or get_cook_chain, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling alternatives.

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 such as find_nodes or get_network_overview. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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