check_for_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a basic scan by explicitly revealing a meaningful side effect: 'Trips lockout if abend found.' This is valuable non-obvious behavior for an agent to know. It does not explain what lockout entails or what happens when no error is found, but the presence of an output schema partially covers return expectations.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical lockout side effect immediately follows. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it states what is scanned, what is detected, and the important lockout side effect. Minor ambiguities such as the exact meaning of 'lockout' or which specific error markers are recognized remain, but they do not seriously hinder correct invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The empty input schema leaves nothing ambiguous, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 ('Scan') and a clear resource/scope: the current screen, looking for abend codes or error markers. It also adds a distinctive side effect, 'Trips lockout if abend found,' which clarifies the tool's special role. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as find_text or analyze_screen_fields, but the purpose is still unambiguous.

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 the tool should be used when the agent needs to detect abend codes or error markers on the current screen. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings like find_text, get_text_at, analyze_screen_fields, or check_job, and it mentions no alternatives or exclusions.

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