pine_get_errors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that diagnostics carry severity and position, but does not explain the unusual idempotentHint=false (presumably it reflects current editor state), nor whether it triggers a compile or only reports an existing one.

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. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a tool whose operating context (post-compile, tab-scoped) is left implicit.

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 read-only, two-optional-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it correctly and even sketches the return contents. The remaining gap — whether a compile must precede the call — is minor but real.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own — notably it says nothing about how target_id / expected_layout_id scope the diagnostics read.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('Monaco compiler diagnostics'), plus the payload fields (severity, line/column). It is distinguishable from mutation siblings like pine_compile or pine_save, though it never names which sibling it complements (pine_compile/pine_check/pine_get_console).

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent must infer that this follows a compile step and that pine_get_console or pine_check are different surfaces; nothing in the text disambiguates the pine_* cluster.

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