get_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 important work by revealing the buffer semantics: clear empties the buffer afterwards, making the destructive side effect explicit, and since filters to entries with seq > since. It also identifies what kind of content will be returned. A small gap is the meaning of since being null, but overall the key behavioral traits are transparent.

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 compact and well-organized: purpose first, then parameter semantics in a clear 'name: meaning' format. There is no filler or repetition of schema type information. Every clause earns its place, and the length is appropriate for a tool with two optional parameters.

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?

The tool is low-complexity and has an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It covers the purpose, the error categories, and both parameters' core semantics. The notable omission is the behavior of since when set to null, which is the default and therefore likely to be used without explicit intent. This leaves an agent slightly uncertain about the baseline query.

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%, so the description must compensate for the bare schema. It does meaningfully explain both parameters: since is a sequence threshold and clear empties the buffer afterwards. However, the description is brief and does not clarify the behavior of since when it is null, even though null is the schema default and a natural way to call the tool.

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 opens with a specific, action-oriented phrase, 'Return intercepted errors,' and enumerates the exact error categories covered: server RPC errors with tracebacks, JS errors, open error dialogs, and error notifications. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and clearly distinguishes it from any sibling tool, none of which concern error retrieval.

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 when to use the tool (whenever you need the current session's intercepted errors) but provides no explicit usage context, exclusions, or alternatives. It does not say, for example, 'use this after an action to check for failures' or contrast with a different error-checking path. The since/clear details are parameter semantics rather than usage guidance.

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