get_validation_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns validation errors but does not specify whether the operation is read-only, what happens if no errors exist, whether the data persists, or any side effects. For a simple getter, the lack of behavioral detail leaves ambiguity.

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, direct sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 that this is a simple getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the minimal description is barely adequate. However, it omits contextual clues such as when to use it (e.g., after a capture with errors) or any relationship to other capture-related tools. A bit more context would improve an agent's ability to decide to call it.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for the single parameter (captureId). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it does not enhance what the schema already offers. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 precisely states a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('WebGPU validation errors'), and the context ('recorded during a capture'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_capture_summary or analyze_performance, which cover other aspects of a capture.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a capture must exist), nor any pointer to sibling tools for related functionality. The intended use case must be inferred from the name and one-line description, but no explicit or implicit selection criteria are given.

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