find_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 states that the tool 'Returns a list of error frames' but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires an open session, or has side effects. This lack of explicit safety and side-effect disclosure is a significant gap, similar to the update_drive example.

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 concise and well-structured, with a one-line summary followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the format is front-loaded with the main purpose. No extraneous information is present.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, all parameters, and return type, but it lacks important context about tool invocation, such as session prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open session) and when to choose this tool over siblings. While the output schema exists, the description does not explain how sessions are managed or what constitutes an 'anomaly.' This incomplete guidance leaves gaps for a moderately complex 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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description compensates by explaining all three parameters in the 'Args' section. It lists valid values for error_type, marks channel as an optional filter, and describes session_id as a session identifier. This adds meaningful detail beyond the bare schema, though it does not fully explain every term (e.g., 'gap' or 'timeout').

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Find error frames and anomalies in CAN bus logs.' It also lists specific error types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like query_can_messages and extract_can_frames, which target general messages or frame extraction. This makes the tool's unique function unambiguous.

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 implies usage by describing error-focused filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or sibling tool comparisons are provided. The error_type parameter list gives additional context but does not offer clear 'use this when' guidance.

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