trmnl_list_author_plugin_errors

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing aggregation semantics, the one-week retention window, the four 'who can act on it' categories, and the fact that hidden rows are returned with hidden=true. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or result-size limits, which matters for an open-world list endpoint.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and follows with row semantics and triage categories; the trailing API path is compact context. The actor enumeration sentence is slightly run-on but every clause carries information.

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, the description does the necessary work of explaining what a row represents and two of its fields (actor, hidden). It stops short of describing the rest of the row payload or how results are ordered/limited, which an agent would want for this open-world analytics endpoint.

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 100% and there is a single optional 'profile' parameter already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about profile selection or defaults beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the failing installs of the plugins you published') plus the row-level scope (one row per distinct error message in the last week). This is clearly separable from siblings like trmnl_get_author_analytics or trmnl_list_uninstall_feedback.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: last-week window, one row per distinct error, and the actor taxonomy that tells the agent how to triage each row. It also notes hidden rows still appear (implying relationship to trmnl_hide_author_plugin_error), but it never names an alternative tool or says when not to use this one.

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