Recent execution errors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe the returned data ('message + traceback') and recency, but does not mention ordering, side effects, or error handling. This is adequate for such a simple read-only tool but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 sentences, zero fluff, action verb first, and all words earn their place. Very efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and clear return format ('message + traceback'), the description is mostly complete. It does not explicitly mention the limit parameter, but the schema covers that, so the description adds value with the recovery context and return content.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already fully describes the parameter's meaning and constraints.

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 verb 'Return' and the specific resource 'most recent failed executions' with detail on content ('message + traceback'). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as execute_lua and read_studio_state by focusing on error retrieval.

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 phrase 'Useful for recovering context' indicates a clear use case, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references are provided. This matches the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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