renforge_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 not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or what 'bounded' means. The ambiguous 'or' between 'bridge exceptions' and 'crash-file diagnostics' adds confusion about the tool's actual behavior.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient, but the over-terseness creates ambiguity. The word 'bounded' seems meaningful but is left unexplained, so the structure is not as clear as it could be.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks essential operational context. It does not clarify the meaning of the required 'project_path' or the 'since' parameter, nor does it describe the nature of the returned diagnostics. The agent is left guessing about prerequisites and result format.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the parameters, but it doesn't. It fails to explain what 'project_path' refers to or how the integer 'since' parameter works, despite the hint from 'recent'.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'recent bridge exceptions or bounded crash-file diagnostics', which is a specific resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like renforge_parse_lint. However, the term 'bounded' is vague and the 'or' is ambiguous, so it doesn't fully reach a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It simply states what it does without contextualizing when to invoke it, such as after a crash or during debugging.

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