pbi_scan_errors

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the exclusion of favicon errors but does not discuss side effects, permissions, or reliability. The tool appears to be a read-only scan, but this is not stated.

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, front-loaded with the main action, no wasted words. The description is concise and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key detail.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the main function and an important exclusion. Minor ambiguity around 'recent' could be clarified, but overall sufficient.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description adequately handles the no-parameter case.

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 scans visible visuals for broken/errored surfaces and recent non-benign console errors, with a specific exclusion. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_screenshot or pbi_read_cards, which have different purposes.

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 context about excluded favicon errors but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling tools, more explicit guidance would improve usability.

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