get_errors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the core function (filtering errors/warnings from build logs) and implies a read-only operation via 'get', but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or side effects. The description adds some context beyond the schema but lacks depth expected for an unannotated tool.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly differentiates from siblings and covers the core purpose, but could optionally mention return format or severity levels to be fully complete. Given the simplicity, it is adequate without those details.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'limit' parameter, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline is 3, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'errors and warnings from Re.Pack build logs', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_build_logs (which likely returns all logs) and get_runtime_logs (which targets runtime). The phrase 'only errors and warnings' emphasizes the filtering scope.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need only errors and warnings from build logs rather than full logs or runtime logs—but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. The sibling names provide context, but the description itself does not reference them. This qualifies as clear context without exclusions.

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