omni_errors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose key behavior: 'min severity hardcoded to WARN' and positions itself as a convenience layer over /omni/logs. However, it does not explain output format, filtering semantics, pagination, or error handling, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a wrapper tool.

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 two short sentences in which every clause earns its place: it defines the wrapper, states the hardcoded severity, and gives a clear usage directive. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the most important information. This is exemplary conciseness for a small wrapper tool.

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 tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool is conceptually but leaves the meaning of all four parameters unexplained and does not describe the return structure. The 'use this first' guidance helps, but the overall context for calling it correctly in varied situations is lacking.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanations for q, limit, since, or source. These parameters are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, so an agent has no basis for knowing how to use them correctly. The description only references severity behavior and does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 identifies this as a convenience wrapper for /omni/logs with a hardcoded minimum severity of WARN, which distinguishes it from the omni_logs sibling. The phrase 'Use this first when something looks wrong' reinforces the intended purpose of retrieving error-level log entries. It is not a tautology and names the specific resource and behavior.

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 explicitly says 'Use this first when something looks wrong,' giving clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. It also references /omni/logs as the underlying tool, implying that omni_logs is the alternative for more flexible severity filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer omni_logs over this tool or list exclusions.

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