get_node_errors_detailed

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: scanning from root_path when node_path is omitted syncs. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, and it fails to explain what 'detailed error analysis' actually includes, whether any cooking or side effects occur, or the format of the returned data.

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 minimal and well-structured, with the purpose stated first followed by a clear argument list. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone. It leaves major gaps: the meaning of 'detailed error analysis', the return structure, and when to use this instead of similar error-related tools. An agent has enough to call the function but not enough to interpret or confidently rely on the result.

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. It adds meaningful semantics for node_path ('Node to analyze, or scan from root_path if omitted') and root_path ('Root path to scan'), which go beyond the raw schema. But the descriptions are terse and don't clarify path syntax, recursion, or what 'scan' entails.

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 clear action ('Get') and resource ('detailed error analysis for nodes'), which matches the tool name closely. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool 'find_error_nodes', and 'detailed' is not defined further.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_error_nodes' or 'get_cook_chain'. It only includes argument descriptions, with no context about the intended use case or scenarios where a different tool would be better.

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