get_relevant_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether results are paginated or bounded (the limit cap of 100 is only in the schema), or what ordering applies when no query is given. The enumeration of returned content types is the only behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two tight sentences with the retrieval scope front-loaded and the query behavior second. No filler, though the parenthetical list is slightly redundant with the first clause.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how query affects ordering, but leaves the meaning of 'related' (relative to what context?) and default ordering unspecified — a gap an agent would notice when calling without a query.

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 coverage is 50% and the description adds meaning the schema does not: that supplying a query changes the result into a relevance ranking, rather than merely filtering. It says nothing about the limit parameter or its cap, leaving that to the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Retrieve') and concrete resources ('related errors, failed attempts and diagnostic information'), further clarified by the parenthetical list of error records, failed tool calls, and failing tests. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_decisions or search_context, and 'related' is left undefined, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Optionally ranked by a query' implies the two modes (unranked fetch vs. ranked search) but never says when to prefer this tool over search_context or the other siblings, nor any exclusions. Usage must be inferred.

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