search_error_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not disclose return format, pagination, filtering behavior, or performance implications beyond the basic search action. The output schema exists but its content is not described.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, front-loading the core purpose 'Search failed nodes'. Every word is functional with no redundancy or filler.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are covered elsewhere) and all parameters are described in the schema, the description is fairly complete. It could mention the scope (requires project) or type of failed nodes, but the essential purpose and input are clear.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides; it essentially restates the pattern parameter as 'error text, fingerprint, or failed-step pattern.' Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches failed nodes by error text, fingerprint, or failed-step pattern, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by focusing on failed nodes and error patterns.

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 for searching failed nodes but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like global_search, search_api, or search_test_case. No when-not or preferred context is mentioned.

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