get_error_boundaries

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. The word 'find' suggests a read-only operation, and mention of 'errors they have caught' gives some return context. However, it does not disclose whether errors include stack traces, whether the tool is expensive, or if it only works in development mode. The description is adequate but minimal.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Find'. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It perfectly balances brevity with informativeness.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the primary function and return focus. It could mention whether all error boundaries are returned or only those with caught errors, but for its simplicity, the description is nearly complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and no additional clarification is required. The empty schema is fully covered by the absence of parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and clearly identifies the resource ('React error boundaries') plus additional relevant detail (errors they have caught). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_component or explain_error.

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 when to use the tool (whenever error boundary information is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. It does not name sibling tools or contrast its functionality, so usage context is only implicit.

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