rs_get_execution_errors

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

With no annotations provided, the description reliably indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it lacks detail on potential behaviors such as rate limiting, authentication requirements, or the format of returned data. The description is minimally sufficient but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous words. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete for a simple read tool. It could optionally describe the return structure, but the lack is not critical.

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 schema already fully describes the single 'count' parameter with its default and max values. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the action 'Read' and the resource 'controller event log for errors and warnings', with a succinct verb+resource description. The '(SDK)' suffix hints at distinguishing from sibling tools like 'rws_event_log' which likely serve a similar purpose via a different interface.

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 usage for reading error/warning logs via SDK, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'rws_event_log' or 'rs_controller_status'. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use.

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