Get errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the capture window ('since connecting') and the unusual coverage (LogBox-swallowed errors that bypass the debugger), which is genuine behavioral value. It says nothing about ordering, whether results accumulate or are cleared, or what happens past the limit, so the transparency is partial.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the core scope is front-loaded in the first sentence before the LogBox qualifier. Every clause adds information an agent could not get from the name alone.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately conveys what data is returned and over what time window. However, it omits the limit parameter's behavior and any sense of result shape or volume, leaving gaps an agent would need to discover by calling.

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 0% for the sole parameter 'limit', which has a max of 100 and an exclusive minimum of 0 but no documented meaning. The description never mentions limit at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; an agent must guess whether it caps error count, is a default of all, or affects ordering.

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 resource with a verb implied by the noun: 'Uncaught exceptions and redboxes captured since connecting.' The second sentence sharpens the scope further by naming LogBox and noting these errors never reach the debugger, which implicitly separates it from get_logs. It never names the sibling explicitly, 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?

There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance and no named alternative such as get_logs or read_screen_text. The usage is inferable from the content scope (errors since connecting), which is enough for an agent debugging a failure, but the boundary versus get_logs is left to inference.

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