game_get_errors

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the incremental cursor-style semantics implicitly, but says nothing about whether reads are non-destructive, whether the buffer is consumed/truncated on read, or what happens if calls are missed — meaningful gaps for a polling tool with mutable state.

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 compact sentence with the core scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is arguably too terse for the tool's polling semantics, but that is a completeness issue rather than verbosity.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the agent still needs to know the return shape (are errors and warnings separate lists?) and the cursor lifecycle. The description plus schema covers parameters adequately but leaves return and state behavior unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both limit and cursor are already documented in the schema. The description adds the 'since last call' framing that gives the cursor meaning, but does not explain how the cursor value is obtained from a response or what limit does when line counts exceed it.

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 states a specific verb (get) and resource (push_error/push_warning messages) plus an incremental scope ('since last call'), which distinguishes it from the sibling game_get_logs and get_debug_output. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'since last call' implies a polling/incremental workflow and hints at when this tool is preferred over a full log dump, but it never states prerequisites (e.g., whether the first call returns everything or nothing) nor names alternatives like game_get_logs.

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