get_node_errors_detailed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It doesn't state that this is a read-only/diagnostic operation, whether it triggers a cook, what kind of errors are surfaced, or what the response contains — 'detailed error analysis' is asserted but never explained.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the purpose stated in the first line and parameters grouped under a clear Args block. No wasted sentences, though the total content is thin rather than tight-and-complete.

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 explain what an error report contains and how it differs from find_error_nodes. Neither is addressed, so an agent cannot predict the result or reliably choose this tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates for both parameters: it explains that node_path selects the node to analyze and that omitting it triggers a scan from root_path, and that root_path defines the scan root. This is meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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+resource ('Get detailed error analysis for nodes'), more informative than the name alone. However it never distinguishes itself from the sibling find_error_nodes, leaving the agent unsure which error-reporting tool 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 only contextual guidance is the parameter-level fallback (scan from root_path if node_path is omitted), which is really schema behavior. There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative find_error_nodes.

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