get_discovery_errors

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing parameter behaviors like severity defaulting to 'Error' and the effect of setting max_message_length to 0, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 structured with a summary line, a usage paragraph, an Args list, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary length.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and return format. It mentions pagination via offset but could be more explicit about how pagination works across multiple calls.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: severity filtering with empty string option, days range, limit, offset, and max_message_length truncation behavior. It also documents default values and edge cases.

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 'Get recent Discovery error and warning log entries' and specifies it queries the discovery_log table. This precisely differentiates it from sibling tools like get_transform_errors and get_discovery_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 advises using the tool to 'diagnose why CIs are not being discovered or updated correctly', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives.

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