pine_get_errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, states 'SIDE EFFECTS: None', and discloses the prerequisite 'Requires Pine Editor to be open.' It stops short of describing what is returned when there are no errors or whether the call triggers any compilation side effect.

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?

Three short labeled clauses (purpose, WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS/LIMITATIONS), front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, safety profile, and prerequisite. It could go slightly further on the shape of the return payload, but it is close to 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema is empty and there is nothing further for the description to clarify about inputs.

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 ('Retrieve') and precise resource ('compiler error messages, line numbers, and syntax markers from Monaco editor model'). This is clearly differentiated from sibling diagnostic tools like pine_get_console, pine_check, and pine_analyze, which target different outputs.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Call immediately after compilation if errors occur.' That is a clear when-to-use condition, but it names no alternatives (e.g., pine_get_console or pine_check) and offers no when-not-to-use guidance.

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