Get slice warnings

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden — and it does so with an unusually valuable disclosure: on the current fork build it may report valid with an empty warnings list even when the GUI shows a plate-boundary toast. That is an explicit false-negative risk an agent would otherwise be misled by. It also bounds the fidelity of results ('only as complete as the API exposes').

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the caveat follows, which is the right ordering. The NOTE paragraph is slightly padded ('tracked as the fork batch... Once it does, this reports the real warnings with no change here'), repeating the same point twice, but it is short and the padding is minor.

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 and no params, the description must convey the return shape itself, and it does: a warnings/errors list plus a validity indicator. Combined with the explicit false-negative caveat, an agent has enough to call it and interpret results. Minor gap: it does not say whether the warnings are scoped to the last slice only when no slice is current.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies parameterlessness by referencing only 'the last (or current) slice' as the implicit scope rather than any caller-supplied selector.

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 resource and scope: 'Just the warnings/errors from the last (or current) slice, plus validity.' The word 'Just' scopes it against broader siblings like get_slice_status and get_slice_breakdown, though it never names them explicitly. An agent can infer the tool returns only the diagnostic subset, but the differentiation relies on inference rather than a named alternative.

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?

Clearly frames the two usage contexts: the 'fast did anything go wrong check' after slicing, and 'the way to confirm a fix cleared.' This tells an agent when to reach for it. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming the sibling (e.g. get_slice_status) that covers the broader case.

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