get_error_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (source-mapped stack trace, highlighted user frames, collapsed node_modules, preceding log lines, originating command/URL), implying a read-only inspection. It omits failure modes such as an unknown or expired error_id, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first front-loads the calling trigger, the second enumerates exactly what comes back. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return value and does so in useful detail. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter read tool, with only error/edge-case behavior left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including that error_id comes from get_runtime_errors, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the error_id source but adds no format, syntax, or project-path guidance beyond the schema.

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 ('inspect an error_id', returns the source-mapped stack trace) and clearly distinguishes itself from get_runtime_errors (it is the follow-up drill-down) and resolve_error. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says to call it immediately after get_runtime_errors, which pins down the trigger condition and the predecessor tool. It does not, however, contrast with resolve_error or say when not to use it, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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