Get Errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure and does so well: it explains that two channels (structured_errors, console_stderr) are never conflated, that stderr tracebacks surface even when the structured channel is empty, and that has_errors/total_errors are structured-only backward-compatible counts. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond structured fields. It stops short of describing side effects or cost, though for a read-only diagnostic tool that gap is minor.

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 opening sentence front-loads the purpose, and the channel breakdown is organized and to the point. It is somewhat dense with parenthetical field lists, but every clause conveys distinct semantics rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still clarifies the non-obvious semantics of the count fields and channel separation. The main omission is guidance on how this differs from lint_notebook when an agent is troubleshooting.

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 server_url and session_id are already documented in the schema, including their optional-if-bound behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning, which is acceptable at full coverage but not additive.

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 and resource ('Get all errors in the notebook session, organized by cell') and immediately scopes what is returned. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling lint_notebook, leaving the agent to infer the static-vs-runtime distinction.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as lint_notebook or get_cell_outputs. It references get_cell_outputs only to describe a shared output shape, not to route the agent, and offers no prerequisites or exclusion conditions.

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