find_error_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only scan but never states it, does not describe whether it walks children recursively, whether it cooks nodes to surface errors, or how errors vs warnings are reported. Only the most basic behavior is conveyed.

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 core sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the appended 'Args:' block merely echoes the parameter name with no added information, which is padding rather than structure.

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 diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should specify what comes back (node paths? messages? severity?) and whether the search is recursive. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to anticipate the response shape.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates the parameter name ('root path to search from'). It adds no path syntax, no indication of whether child networks are traversed, and the default '/' appears only in the schema.

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: find nodes that carry errors or warnings. Clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_node_errors_detailed or verify_network, so an agent cannot tell which of these overlapping diagnostics 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives such as get_node_errors_detailed or get_cook_status. The agent is left to infer that this is a scene-wide scan starting at a root path.

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