get_node_errors_detailed

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but says nothing about whether error data is cached versus recomputed, how deep the analysis goes, or what happens when a node has no errors — significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, but it is under-specified rather than concise; the brevity leaves core behavior unexplained.

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 annotations, no output schema, and two fully undocumented parameters, the definition does not give an agent enough to call the tool correctly or interpret its results. It needs at least the error scope and the node_path/root_path relationship.

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 0% and both parameters (node_path, root_path) are undocumented. The description doesn't explain the interaction between them — e.g., whether omitting node_path means analyzing every node under root_path — which is the central semantic question for this tool.

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 verb and resource ('Get detailed error analysis for nodes'), so the agent knows it retrieves error information about nodes. But 'detailed error analysis' is vague — it doesn't say whether these are cook errors, connection errors, or script errors, nor how this differs from get_node_info or get_cook_status in the sibling list.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_node_info or get_cook_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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