Renforge Get Errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints that diagnostics are 'bounded' (implying a capped/truncated payload) and 'recent' (implying a time window), but says nothing about permissions, whether output is truncated, side effects, or why diagnostics may be unavailable.

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 with no filler, which is appropriate for a two-parameter diagnostic tool. Its brevity is efficient, though it shades into under-specification rather than lean precision.

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-value shape need not be described, and the tool is a simple two-parameter read. However, with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the missing 'since' semantics and the unexplained 'or' branch between two result types leave a gap for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 and does not. 'Recent' loosely gestures at the 'since' parameter but gives no units, epoch format, or semantics, and 'project_path' is never explained or tied to the project being diagnosed.

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 ('Return') and concrete resources ('bridge exceptions', 'crash-file diagnostics'), which no sibling tool covers, so it is distinguishable from the rest of the renforge_* family. It loses a point for unexplained jargon ('bridge exceptions', 'bounded crash-file diagnostics') that leaves the exact artifact type ambiguous.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as renforge_parse_lint or renforge_poll_events, nor any prerequisite or condition for use. The reader must infer the trigger scenario entirely.

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