get_gerrit_cl_bot_errors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose (retrieving error details) and output format (stack traces, test failures), but doesn't mention behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens when no errors exist. It adds some context about what gets returned but lacks operational details.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: first sentence states what the tool does and what it includes, second sentence explains the diagnostic purpose. No wasted words or 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and context but lacks important operational details. It explains what the tool retrieves but doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, or limitations. Given the complexity of debugging test failures, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions the general purpose ('diagnose why tests failed') but provides no additional syntax, format, or usage details for parameters.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get detailed error messages with stack traces'), target resource ('failed try-bots for a Chromium Gerrit CL'), and scope ('actual test failures, assertion errors, and full stack traces'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_gerrit_cl_trybot_status' by focusing specifically on error details rather than general status.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to diagnose why tests failed'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage for debugging test failures rather than general status checking, which is helpful but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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