Read script errors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: what the response contains (stack trace, script path) and that errors persist in the bridge so the tool remains callable during a waiting_for_roblox state. It stops short of describing ordering, freshness, or absence behavior when no errors exist.

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, no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the conditional availability note. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

With four optional params fully documented, safety annotations present, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials and usefully characterizes the return payload. Only minor gaps remain: result ordering, what an empty result looks like, and when to prefer get_logs.

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%, with limit, since, client, and contains all documented including defaults and units. The description adds no filtering semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read recent script errors captured from the Roblox executor") and names the payload contents (stack trace, script path). It does not differentiate from siblings like get_logs or clear_logs, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of these read paths to pick.

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 line "Works while waiting_for_roblox because the bridge stores the errors" gives a genuine usage condition that an agent can act on. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing against the obvious alternative get_logs, so the guidance is implied rather than directive.

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