get_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get...') and introduces a filtering concept, which is some useful context. However, it doesn't disclose whether errors are fetched live or from a buffered store, whether calling before server start yields an error or empty results, or the return format. For a read operation with limited side effects, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 a single, efficient sentence that packs purpose and filtering into minimal words. No fluff. It doesn't elaborate on return format or categories, but it stays tight and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

This is a simple read tool with 2 fully-documented parameters and no output schema. Given low complexity, the description adequately captures the core purpose and filtering capability. However, without annotations or any guidance about server prerequisites (a concern given sibling start_dev_server/stop_dev_server), it's slightly under-specified regarding operational context, but remains acceptable for a simple tool.

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 100%, so both parameters (limit, category) are already fully documented. The description adds only the generic mention of 'filtering options' which corroborates the category param but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Get recent errors from the dev server') and mentions filtering options. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_logs — the distinction is implied by the verb 'errors' vs 'logs' and the category filter.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools like get_logs, get_status, and start_dev_server suggest related operations, but the description doesn't clarify when errors are available (e.g., only when a dev server is running, or whether start_dev_server must precede this). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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