list_task_ansible_errors

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the description needn't re-state safety. It adds nothing beyond them: no mention of response shape, whether an in-progress task returns partial errors, or empty-result behavior. The endpoint path is corroboration, not new behavioral information.

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 short, front-loaded fragments with no padding — the purpose is the first thing read. The terseness borders on under-specification rather than waste, which keeps it just below 5.

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?

With no output schema and no annotation-derived detail about return values, the description leaves the agent guessing what 'errors' contains and in what format. For a retrieval tool with two opaque integer IDs, that is a meaningful gap.

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 neither parameter is documented anywhere except the URL template in the description, which implies project_id and task_id are path segments. That is a marginal gain, but it doesn't say what a task_id refers to (job vs. Ansible task) or what happens with an invalid pair.

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 (get Ansible task errors) and even includes the exact endpoint, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_task_stages or list_task_ansible_hosts. It falls short of 5 because 'errors' is never defined (per-host failures? play recap? parsing errors?).

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 guidance on when to use this instead of get_task_output, get_task_raw_output, or list_task_ansible_hosts, all of which are plausible alternatives in the sibling set. The agent must infer the choice from names alone.

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